#Patientrights

New research highlights a troubling pattern known as medical gaslighting—when clinicians dismiss or misattribute patients’ pain. The conversation around this issue is growing, especially for women with chronic gynecological pain. Experts say gender bias, gaps in medical training, and underfunding of women’s health research contribute to the problem, a concern echoed in studies summarized by The Conversation.

In Thailand, social taboos around sexual and reproductive health can silence discussion and delay care. Conditions such as endometriosis and vulvodynia affect about one in ten women worldwide, yet many patients report skepticism from healthcare providers. Phrases like “just relax” or “it’s all in your head” are still heard by some patients seeking help.

A growing body of research is shining an uncomfortable spotlight on the phenomenon of medical gaslighting—where healthcare professionals downplay, misattribute, or dismiss their patients’ pain—bringing renewed attention to a pervasive problem especially faced by women suffering from chronic gynecological pain conditions. This latest wave of studies, as described by experts in a recently published analysis on The Conversation, suggests that medical gaslighting is not only distressingly common but also deeply rooted in systemic gender bias, knowledge gaps in medical training, and persistent underfunding of women’s health research (The Conversation).

A new international research protocol highlights a long-overlooked area in chronic illness care: sexual health, well-being, and pleasure for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). By proposing a comprehensive review of global literature and patient experiences, the initiative seeks to move beyond traditional clinical focus to address intimacy as part of holistic disease management. This conversation is increasingly relevant to Thai patients and families seeking comprehensive, patient-centered care.

RMDs such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and ankylosing spondylitis cause painful joints, fatigue, and limited mobility. The impact extends to emotions, self-esteem, and relationships. The new scoping review aims to integrate sexual health and rights into routine care, recognizing them as essential components of quality of life for people living with chronic conditions.

A new international research protocol is shining a spotlight on a long-neglected aspect of patient care: the sexual health, well-being, and pleasure of individuals living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). By proposing a sweeping review of global literature and lived experiences, this initiative aims to address both the clinical and societal fatigue around topics of intimacy for millions affected worldwide—a conversation now increasingly relevant to Thai patients and families seeking holistic chronic disease management [source: Wiley Online Library].

A University of Toronto study spotlights a pivotal yet often overlooked issue in women’s health: how the type of hysterectomy may shape post-operative sexual wellbeing. The research compares radical hysterectomy, which removes the uterus, upper vagina, and surrounding tissue, with simpler procedures that spare more tissue. The findings suggest that survival and cancer control must be balanced with long-term quality of life, including sexual function, a consideration that matters for Thai patients as hysterectomy rates rise nationwide.

A University of Toronto researcher is calling renewed attention to a crucial but often overlooked aspect of women’s health: the impact of hysterectomy type on post-operative sexual wellbeing. Recent work suggests the decision between radical and simple hysterectomy—two procedures used primarily in the treatment of uterine and cervical cancers—has profound implications not only for cancer control but also for the long-term quality of life, including sexual health, for women worldwide, including those in Thailand.

Trust between patient and doctor is essential, especially in sexual health. A growing movement shows that changing gynecologists can empower patients and improve health outcomes. A widely shared piece on TheBody.com highlighted a patient who left a gynecologist who shamed her for requesting PrEP, choosing a provider who respected her autonomy. This narrative prompts Thai readers to consider how patient-provider relationships shape access to respectful, evidence-based care.

In Thailand, trust in doctors remains high, but patients often defer to authority, which can hinder open dialogue about sexual health. International and local research emphasizes that all patients deserve respectful communication and sound guidance, especially for sensitive topics like PrEP and conditions such as endometriosis. Studies summarized in medical literature show that inadequate communication is a persistent barrier to optimal gynecological care, underscoring the need for patient-centered dialogue.

For many people, the relationship with their doctor is one of trust and vulnerability—especially when it comes to sexual health. Yet recent personal narratives and research highlight that changing healthcare providers, particularly gynecologists, can be an act of self-empowerment that leads to better sexual health outcomes. This trend, spotlighted by a widely shared article titled “Firing My Gynecologist Was Good for My Sexual Health” on TheBody.com, underlines a growing movement where patients prioritize their own wellbeing and dignity over tradition or habit.

A major hospital network in New York’s Hudson Valley has agreed to overhaul its mental health services amid findings of serious care lapses during a state investigation—a move being closely watched by healthcare advocates internationally, including in Thailand, as systems globally grapple with post-pandemic gaps in psychiatric care (Gothamist). The action underscores both ongoing struggles in mental healthcare access and increasing government pressure for reform in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic’s disruptions.

A major hospital network in New York’s Hudson Valley has agreed to overhaul its mental health services after a state investigation uncovered serious care lapses. The reforms are watched by health advocates globally, including in Thailand, as health systems address post-pandemic gaps in psychiatric care. Public health experts say this case highlights how oversight and accountability can drive meaningful improvement.

WMCHealth, which operates nine hospitals in the Hudson Valley, has entered a legally binding settlement to restore psychiatric beds closed during the pandemic and strengthen emergency mental health protocols. HealthAlliance Hospital in Kingston, part of the WMCHealth system, reopened 20 psychiatric beds in December 2024 in response to the investigation. The network also plans a new 20-bed psychiatric unit at MidHudson Regional Hospital in Poughkeepsie, a move announced by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

A growing global conversation about mental health is increasingly focusing on the professionals who provide care. Viral discussions about “terrible therapists” highlight problematic practices and raise questions about how to ensure therapy is supportive, ethical, and effective.

In Thailand, interest in counseling is rising, yet stigma and shortages of trained professionals persist. The Ministry of Public Health reports more Thais seeking mental health support in urban areas and among youth. However, the quality of care varies widely. Social media conversations and stories from Thai users mirror global concerns, with some individuals describing disengagement, judgment, or breaches of confidentiality by therapists.

A growing number of people worldwide are opening up about their struggles not just with mental health, but with the very professionals meant to help them. Recent viral discussions, including a BuzzFeed article compiling stories of “terrible therapists,” are shining a harsh spotlight on problematic practices within the mental health industry (BuzzFeed). These personal accounts — ranging from therapists giving unsolicited advice to crossing ethical boundaries — are prompting experts and individuals alike to ask: how can we make sure mental health care is genuinely helpful, not harmful?