Psychologist Says Opposite Sex Should Examine Molested Children : Final Testimony Backs Hospital in Discrimination Case

A psychologist testified Friday that sexually abused children respond to treatment more quickly when the examining physician is of the opposite sex from the abuser.

The testimony by Margaret Fowler-Vernon of San Diego wrapped up a weeklong hearing in the reverse-discrimination case of a doctor seeking work with the Children’s Hospital sexual abuse program.

Dr. Charles Gilman, 49, of Poway, filed a sex-discrimination complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing when he was denied a position with the program because the medical director, Dr. David Chadwick, would only hire women.

At issue is whether the sex of the examining physician in child sexual abuse cases should be an occupational qualification. Chadwick and witnesses for the hospital contend that because most victims of sexual abuse are girls, and most female victims state a preference for a woman doctor, it is legitimate to exclude men from the program.

Fowler-Vernon, who said she has treated more than 1,000 sexually abused children, 85% of them female, testified that it is important to let the abused child select whether he or she has a male or female doctor. She that 95% of the abusers were male.

“The ideal state of affairs,” Fowler-Vernon said, “would be if the examiner is the opposite sex of the abuser.”

Previous testimony by Dr. Kerry English, director of the child sexual abuse program at Martin Luther King Hospital in Los Angeles, confirmed the hospital’s stand that most girls prefer to be examined by a woman after sexual abuse. English said his staff conducted a poll of 350 girl victims and 349 said they preferred female doctors.

Gilman, a physician and osteopathic surgeon, said the issue is one of sensitivity and not sex. He said having only women examine abuse victims perpetuates a stereotype that women are compassionate and gentle and men are not. “Are we going to stereotype the patients into fear of all men?” he asked. “The sensitive male physician can change this child’s opinion about men.”

According to Gilman, Chadwick has no sex requirement for physicians and specialists whom a child might have to visit later. “He wants his program run his way, but he’s not being consistent,” Gilman said.

Gloria Barrios, Gilman’s attorney, calls it a clear case of sex discrimination. “Dr. Gilman was not given a chance to be considered,” she said. “My concern is that in this hot field, are we going to preempt it for women? In the long run, it will relegate women to the child care field.”

Gilman, who has been in practice for nearly 20 years, applied for the position in December, 1982. He said he needed the job to supplement his income from his practice. He was the sole applicant for the job of medical examiner, in which the physician examines the child’s genitals for injuries and the presence of semen.

Chadwick, of Children’s Hospital, has said that as the only man on the staff, he can handle examining the few victims who request a male doctor.

Richard Paul, the hospital’s attorney, said, “Patient preference is one of the well-recognized BFOQs”--or bona fide occupational qualifications. He said the job of nurse attendant in the delivery room of a maternity ward is another position where it is not considered discriminatory to exclude men.

“They’re missing the point,” Paul said. “This is an area where there is patient preference. This problem does not exist outside the confines of this traumatic intake period.”

It may be as long as three months before the court rules on the case.