Rape victims will choose gender of their examiner (Scotland)

I don't have that info either, who manages them, who they are hired by etc

It may vary force to force and depending on what specialised services they have etc

For sure the docs, I imagine, would sign up for it in some way, even if not directly employed in that role ft or pt

It does indees ShinyFootball and other places.

I must confess that I entered this particular thread without giving much thought to who medical examiners actually are, but it should have taken me a nanosecond to realise that they are probably just doctors on call, presumably who signed up to be so (no doubt still displaying my ignorance). I also have no idea whether such medical examiners only deal with sexual assault victims or have a wider role of which examining such victims is only a part.

I think the circs are different personally but haven't got a quick answer.

PaleBlue this comes up with prison officers as well.

Of course (in general) people should be able to refuse to examine people they know. :/

If you've be attacked and the examiner turns out to be your dad or your brother in law or your best mates husband then of course either medic or person to be examined should be allowed to say no.

My mum was a doc and broke her leg, she was ok with a person she knew giving her suppository for quick pain relief, not everyone would be ok with that!

I wanted to know what the legislation said about it, though I realised part way through that it probably wouldn't be dealt with in legislation anyway (if it is dealt with at all) but rather in guidance or professional ethics.

The reason I am interested is that I am exploring the professional circumstances in which it is OK for a woman to say they will not touch a man and those in which it is acceptable for a woman to do so. I agree that a woman working as a medically examiner in these circumstances probably shouldn't be allowed to refuse to examine a male victim (any more than I think a female doctor should be allowed to refuse to examine a male patient) so I am exploring - in my own mind - why I instinctively think that is the right answer when I wouldn't think the same about a border guard. It is probably to do with the extent to which it is the essence of the job, but that is what I am thinking about. There is an inconsistency in what I think, so I am trying to unpick that a little.

I see you ignore your own confusion about Freeman said.

You also posted some nonsense about what if the examiner and the victim knew each other as a reason for the examiner refusing. The victim may well be happy to be examined by someone they know. I know 2 nurses who are friends who do each other's smears.

I didn’t say this

You were questioning over several posts if a man could ask for a female practitioner. Why should a man not do so? What point were you trying to make? If the right to specify the gender/sex is good enough for women it's good enough for a male victim too. What was the point of the rather dogged questioning about whether a man should have the same right?

It's obvious I'm talking about a practitioner refusing to treat a male victim following from the bizarre suggestion by
PaleBlueMoonlight that a female practitioner should be entitled to refuse to treat a male victim if a male victim requested a female.

I didn’t say this.

'if you are referring to querying the bizarre idea that it was wrong for men to specify the sex/gender of the examiner the poster who made the comment PaleBlueMoonlight didn't seem to have difficulty in understanding the point.'

The only person in the thread who mentioned it was pale blue moonlight. Everyone else said why shouldn't men be allowed to choose.

Then you said 'I think 'tough' is not the right answer tbh

Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.'. When I can't see a drive on the thread to say that female medics should be allowed to refuse to examine men who have been sexually attacked just because they are men.

You are arguing points that only paleblue has even hinted at. Then you say they understand what they're saying which is even more confusing.

Ok so you need to flag that post or the poster because everyone else on the thread said what the fuck are you talking about

if you are referring to querying the bizarre idea that it was wrong for men to specify the sex/gender of the examiner the poster who made the comment PaleBlueMoonlight didn't seem to have difficulty in understanding the point.

Not least because there is no evidence that female examiners are saying 'eugh a man', unless you have some?

I take the concept of hyperbole is unknown to you? Well clearly it is since everything has to be taken literally.

It's also bizarre that you are concentrating on this peripheral issue rather than the main point- namely that Freeman did not say there would be a choice of the sex of the examiner. She confirmed there would be a choice of gender and then lied about what she said; which makes your comment about the newspaper lying look just a teeny bit silly.

Sorry for the derail.

Ok so you need to flag that post or the poster because everyone else on the thread said what the fuck are you talking about.

It's one person's view so really I'm not in s position to respond.

The good news is from previous posts most of these examiners are male, and we know most victims are female, so it's not likely to come up very often.

Not least because there is no evidence that female examiners are saying 'eugh a man', unless you have some?

ShinyFootball

And I can't believe the paper changed her words

Actually I can

The paper didn't change her words. She didn't say what she is claiming she said.

ShinyFootball

'Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.'

Are you talking about the victim or what? I'm not following

It's obvious I'm talking about a practitioner refusing to treat a male victim following from the bizarre suggestion by
PaleBlueMoonlight that a female practitioner should be entitled to refuse to treat a male victim if a male victim requested a female.

In the specialist situation we are discussing here- ie examining traumatised victims of sexual abuse - the grown-up thing is to do the job you chose to do- not to get someone else to do it.

'Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.'

Are you talking about the victim or what? I'm not following.

Michelle I did say violently racist. It is not 'being a grown up' to accept verbal and physical abuse.

The grown up thing to do is get someone else to treat them to get the job done. Rather than saying it's your job get on with it no matter what.

I think 'tough' is not the right answer tbh

Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.

Your example of the nurse and the victim knowing each other isn't remotely the same and that would be up to the victim to decide.

Pretty much you can't have someone in that situation who cannot, at all times, be the grown up.

Professional boundaries are one thing though - ie I must state that ethically cannot treat this person, because I know them/have a conflict of interest.

Saying "I will not treat this person because they hold political views I find offensive" is plain not professional.

You do your job, you do it properly and to the best of your ability and impartially, even with the nasty, mean, racist, smelly, abusive and violent ones: that's daily reality for police, NHS, social services, education, emergency services etc. You do it, you take pride in the fact you do it despite all the provocation and challenges, and if need be you work with your team to let off steam, debrief or take needed action afterwards out of sight of that person.

Any professional who wants to decline to do their job over feeling personally offended - or who wishes to do their job against their patient's wishes or take action because they feel personally offended is not behaving professionally and shouldn't be doing that job. Capacity issues.

Dido there should be if eg turns out the medic and the person know each other etc

Or if the person is violently racist or something

(Thinking in general here not for rape specifically)

I think 'tough' is not the right answer tbh

Also if there is a Memorandum of Understanding to a bill on services to Victims of Sexual Offences that listsSex of Examinerwhy aren’t law makers being more accurate in their language and why is a representative of Rape Crisis then talking about gender

They are hamstrung by the existing The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 which refers to gender not sex.

Freeman needs to be clear on what she thinks "gender" means. That's what the black letter of the law says.

Probably right Dido. I expect the same is true of all doctors. But I don’t think it is ok to insist of bouncers, prison officers, border guards etc. So I am examining (for my own sake) why I think that, where the boundary is, and why. Anyway, not directly relevant to this thread.

I am interested though in the concept of insisting that a woman must examine a man even if she does’t want to because it is required by her job

Sorry but tough. If anyone chooses to get involved in this very specialist type of care there should be no opt out.