• Resident & Student News •
Online-only content
 Officially recognizing domestic partnerships between same-gender couples seems a logical extension of AAFP's positions supporting diversity and family health advocacy, says Abbas Hyderi, M.D., of the Oregon Health & Science University Family Practice Residency in Portland. |
The National Congress of Family Practice Residents and National Congress of Student Members tackled some tricky issues Aug. 9, sometimes splitting on how they voted to handle those measures. For example, residents voted to refer to the AAFP Board of Directors a resolution calling for the Academy to recognize marriage as a "partnership between two individuals regardless of gender or sexual orientation." Students took a more definitive stance, narrowly adopting a resolution asking the AAFP to advocate extending the "civil rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage to couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation."
Patrick Conner, a student at East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, was among those opposing the measure. "We don't need this resolution," he said. "We don't have to isolate ourselves or do something that may make our patients angry."
Compared with their action on the marriage resolution, the students seemed more hesitant on other reproductive rights resolutions. Whereas each resolution received a thumbs-up in the resident congress, students voted both of them down.
 Amy Miglani, M.D., of the family practice residency at Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y., says she's cared for many young women who could benefit from a resolution she helped write that's meant to safeguard FPs' ability to care for their reproductive health patients. |
The first resolution asked the Academy to oppose infringement on a physician's ability to "treat, counsel or refer patients for reproductive health care that is within the physician's scope of practice." In the second, residents called for AAFP to support a proposal to the FDA making progesterone-only emergency contraception available over the counter. They further asked the Academy to recommend to the FDA labeling that would encourage patients to contact a primary care physician, clinic or the product distributor for counseling about use of such products.
Resolutions regarding the length of family practice residency training also drew mixed reactions from students and residents. A measure introduced in the student congress that called for the AAFP to "declare an official position in favor of a four-year family medicine residency" was not adopted. Rather, students took the position that the Future of Family Medicine project would address this issue in due time.
Residents considered a resolution calling for the Academy to "explore the creation of four-year residency programs for rural track family practice residents." After vigorous debate -- including rejection of a proposed amendment to omit the words "rural track" -- the congress adopted the measure. Much of the debate centered on concerns about funding an additional year of training and whether extending rural residency programs to four years would result in discontinuation of existing rural fellowships, eliminating the option of training for rural practice after completion of a three-year residency.
Craig Denham, M.D., of the University of Louisville (Glasgow, Ky.) Family Medicine Residency shot straight from the hip with his concerns about the prospect of extending family practice residency training. "We've got to cut the cord sometime and get people out of residency training," he told his colleagues in the congress. "Longer training isn't necessarily better training, and we're going to drive people into peds or general medicine."
To reach writer Cindy Borgmeyer, e-mail cborgmey@aafp.org.
FP Report is published by the
AAFP News Department.
Copyright © 2003 by
American Academy of Family Physicians.