You Are Just Fat”: 65 Patients Who Couldn’t Believe The Treatment They Got In The ER – Bored Panda

A patient arriving at an emergency room in an unresponsive state was hauled from a taxi by staff who heard the driver describe the individual as just some wasted college student. Despite the patient’s attempts to communicate that their drink had been spiked and they had only consumed two drinks, the hospital did not perform a toxicology screen or a basic blood alcohol content (BAC) test.

According to accounts shared via Bored Panda, the patient was woken up the following morning and asked to leave. When they requested the results of a tox screen to file a police report, they were informed that the staff had not bothered to run one. This instance demonstrates the consequences that occur when a provider’s immediate assumption about a patient’s condition leads to the decision to bypass objective diagnostic tools.

The systemic pattern of medical gaslighting

The experience of being unheard or dismissed by a medical professional is not an isolated feeling but a recognized phenomenon. The Cleveland Clinic defines medical gaslighting as occurring when a healthcare provider’s behavior makes a patient feel unheard, unimportant, or unwelcome. In severe cases, this dynamic can lead patients to question the reality of their own physical symptoms.

While any patient can encounter this behavior, certain groups face higher risks. Research indicates that women and individuals who already encounter barriers within the healthcare system are more susceptible to being dismissed. These experiences are often documented in patient narratives where providers may attribute physical pain to psychological causes or lifestyle factors rather than conducting a thorough clinical investigation.

One example detailed in the Bored Panda reports involves a woman who sought emergency care for chest pain and shortness of breath. Rather than conducting an objective assessment, the triage nurse characterized the symptoms as an anxiety attack. The patient was sent to the waiting room without having her vitals taken; she passed away on the floor hours later at 38 years old.

Implicit bias and the triage process

Implicit bias consists of unconscious associations or stereotypes that can affect how a provider perceives a patient, which in turn may dictate the quality and speed of the treatment administered. These biases can create a disconnect between the symptoms a patient reports and the medical care they ultimately receive.

“It’s often a side effect of the physician not being well-versed in the background of their patient,” explains Ohio-based psychologist Dr. Chivonna Childs. “Historical stereotypes may not be blatant anymore, but their undercurrents still exist. And implicit bias can impact the care you get.” Dr. Chivonna Childs, Psychologist

When a provider relies on these undercurrents, the triage process can be influenced by subjective perceptions rather than purely objective medical screening. This is particularly evident when patients do not fit the “ideal” image of a specific ailment or when they possess traits that trigger negative stereotypes, such as weight or perceived socioeconomic status. In these environments, the patient’s self-reporting may be treated as unreliable, and the provider’s assumption becomes a primary driver of the diagnostic process.

The danger of skipping objective diagnostics

The most dangerous result of medical gaslighting is the omission of standard, objective tests. When a provider believes they have already “solved” the case through a stereotype, they may skip the due diligence required to ensure patient safety.

For the patient who was suspected of being intoxicated, the failure to run a BAC test meant that potential alcohol poisoning or the presence of dangerous narcotics went unmonitored. For others, the bias manifests as a suspicion of drug-seeking behavior. One patient reported visiting the ER four times in a single week for abdominal pain. During the second visit, a nurse greeted them with oh welcome back while rolling her eyes, suggesting the staff believed the patient was seeking medication.

Despite the patient explaining that they had previously undergone emergency surgery for a twisted colon and that the current pain felt similar, they were repeatedly sent home. It was only after the patient expressed a belief that they were going to pass away that they were transported by ambulance to a different facility. At the new hospital, doctors discovered the patient’s last ovary had twisted on itself. Because the initial ER visits were dismissed, the ovary could not be saved, resulting in the patient entering surgical menopause before the age of 40.

These cases, drawn from a group of 65 patient stories, illustrate a recurring theme: the replacement of clinical evidence with character judgment. Whether the bias is rooted in the assumption that a patient is just fat or that they are seeking drugs, the result is a compromise in diagnostic accuracy.

The failure to utilize toxicology screens, vitals, and imaging in these specific accounts highlights the risks associated with relying on assumptions over evidence. When the human element of triage is influenced by implicit bias, the objective tools of medicine may be ignored, shifting the burden of survival onto the patient’s ability to advocate for themselves in a system that has already decided they are not believable.