The main point of the reading “Clinical Myths of the Cultural ‘Other’: Implications for Latino Patient Care” by Linda M. Hunt and Katherine B. de Voogd is that “efforts to be ‘culturally competent’, in the absence of a patient-centered approach, may unintentionally encourage stereotyping, thereby negatively affecting the quality and content of clinical care” (Hunt, pg. 918). This paper talks about a study that was done on clinics in southern Texas regarding Latina patient’s views on amniocentesis and clinicians views on what they thought their Latina clients thought about amniocentesis. The clinicians thought that that Latina women were more likely to decline amniocentesis because their Latina clients are fearful of the procedure and that they had weird folk beliefs that kept them from accepting the procedures. They also thought that medical decisions were family matters and their families kept them from accepting the procedure and that Latino people are mostly Catholic and fatalists, which prevent them from accepting the amniocentesis. Clinicians also stated that they tended to share less information about amniocentesis with Latina women so that they would accept the amniocentesis. When interviewing and surveying the Latina patients, the study found that they did not reject the amniocentesis any more than clients of other ethnicities. Latina patients did say they were fearful of the procedure, but those that were fearful still accepted the procedure. They also said they were family oriented, but they only shared with family to ask for advice and most of the family members left the decision up to them, saying they would support them no matter what they decided. Those that affiliated with being Catholic still accepted the test; they prayed about having a healthy baby, but their religion did not prevent them from having the test. Religion also did not play a factor in whether they would abort or not; most of them said they would not abort and would love their baby no matter what. Even though they were against abortion, they still received the test. The paper raises the question about how clinician views could be so off about their clients from the reality.