High Court Battle - pronouns

A midwife who doesn't believe in abortion is protected in law to not play a part in any termination services.

Their obligation is to find another HCP to take over caring for that patient. As far as I read this article, that's what he was asking to do.

He was asked a hypothetical question. afaik, the DWP assessments don't involve physical examinations. It would actually be straightforward for him to go through the assessment without once using the name or pronouns in which he doesn't believe. It wouldn't be my idea of a courteous process but I would suppose that's the least of the issues with them. I assume the difficulty might occur with the report write-up if the name hasn't been pre-filled for him and if he's summarising any conversation that he had with the client.

He's not asking for the right to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. He's asking for the right to not have their beliefs imposed on him.

He is asking for the right to impose his religious beliefs on vulnerable people he is in a position of power over. And I think that's hugely inappropriate and means he shouldn't be able to do that job, just like I would disapprove of a registrar who didn't believe in gay marriage and wanted the right to make that clear to a gay couple or a midwife who didn't believe in abortion. Some religious beliefs are not compatible with taking on certain roles.

There’s a massive difference between giving a religious lecture to a gay person or an unmarried mother, and in objecting to being told by your employer to do something that you consider unethical and harmful to your patients or service users.

Interesting you think he’s go on some diatribe about religion - why would he do that?

And why have you brought up sexuality & the Holocaust? Nowhere does it say he exhibits homophobic views or that he is anti Semitic

He’s asking for the right not to be compelled to say a man is a woman

If you’re the patient’s psychiatrist then challenging them may be in your clinical remit. Otherwise? Address people how they want, because a medical consultation is about them, not you.

afaict, this isn't something that he's done. He was asked hypothetical questions by a manager and he gave his answers.

Dr Mackereth said during proceedings that he was asked in a conversation by his line manager: 'If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as 'she' and 'Mrs', would you do that?'

Dr Mackereth, who now works as an NHS emergency doctor in Shropshire, said that in good conscience he could not do this. His contract was subsequently terminated over his refusal.

’It is a difficult issue for everyone in the NHS. There has been an explosion of patients identifying as transgender. The ideology to affirm them is enforced in a complex, coercive, and threatening way.’

Given what we know about training sessions and Stonewall and the advice given about what to do if a TW is on a female ward I think this is probably right. If he wins it might have wider (imo positive) repercussions across the NHS.

So basically he's suing in order to defend his right to make vulnerable people uncomfortable while in a position of power over them? He sounds like an utter horror show. I have had disability assessments and they are so stressful at the best of times - I can't imagine how much worse it would be if my assessor had started off by explaining that their religious beliefs meant they need to tell me, for example, that my sexuality wasn't real or the Holocaust was a hoax or something. Or, indeed, if they couldn't use my normal every day name because they can only use the name on my birth certificate.

I just don't see how he could do that job and retain any kind of credibility or have any of his decisions respected once he'd gone down that path.

He was sacked because his boss asked him whether he would address a 6 foot bearded man as a woman if asked to. He makes it clear in the article that people need to be able to trust doctors to tell the truth - the scientific truth. Lying about the existence of biological sex undermines the place of doctors in society. Why should we then expect them to tell the truth about Covid, for instance?

"Everyone in the NHS should be able to say publicly without fear that a person cannot change sex, but instead we are being forced to accept a massive change to our concept of the medical reality of sex, with no scientific basis for that change.

'No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex.

'Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended.

'If we are to tell patients that they need to "follow the science", then we must not tell them that they can change sex.'

Being compelled to say or agree with things that you don't think are true can be harmful though.

For this reason, I don't join in with uttering the Lord's Prayer in church, I go quiet rather than saying the responses to prayers at the school carol service, I don't buy Mother's Day cards with "best grandma" on for neglectful mil...

There was research somewhere that showed dealing with conflict at work affected productivity and ability to concentrate for a period of time after each interaction. Who knows how much brain space a HCP is using to reorder their speech that should be going on the job in hand instead.

@GreenWhiteViolet and in that context I agree 100%.

But that’s not the context.

The context is:

“Good morning Mr Smith. Tell me how your back troubles stop you working…”

Or

“Good morning Mrs Smith (ignores beard). Tell me…”

I agree I’d the trans issue is impacting on fitness to work it may need to be explored. If not? Not the time or place for a doctor to be imposing their religious beliefs on the patient.

Jane was unhappy and felt left out because the girls didn't want her to share their changing room.

Jane was unhappy and felt left out because the girls didn't want him to share their changing room.

Same individual. Completely different connotations. We need to be able to name the problem.

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

When talking to someone why does it hurt? Anyway there's an obvious solution, use the person's name rather than he/she much better anyway.

There's lots of issues around trans but whether to appease a patient in clinic and say she isn't the cross to die on - it's devalues the important issues like shared spaces because it lumps genuine concerns in with a right to be called a name or she which doesn't actually matter

What if they are unable to work because of mental health issues? How do you unpick which things you challenge and which you completely let go? What if they're involved in the work issues?

(I say all of this as someone who uses preferred pronouns but, I am concerned by the lack of clarity these judgements bring )

this man is refusing to [use the patient’s choice of pronouns] and he is in a position of power over his trans patients.

But he is not abusing his position. He is not refusing treatment. He simply refuses to collude with the patient’s fantasy.

I have a female friend who is always referred to as Sir.
She isn't forcing people to call her sir against their will though is she.

I am still struggling to understand (Monday morning). If someone looked like a man but wanted to be referred to as madam, how does that contravene the Bible. For a start Dr could not be sure they were male and so addressing them as madam would be the logical thing. If however because as a Dr they has reason to examine the individual and knew they were male I can understand the argument to not address them as madam for scientific reasons.

There are plenty of females who look masculine and they could be thought to be men and addressed as such but that would be wrong. I have a female friend who is always referred to as Sir.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

This is the original judgement he’s appealing against. In predates Maya. He was working for DWP assessing claims for disability benefits

This man is a doctor. He currently works as one in an NHS a&e.

Is he expected to refer to patients by 'their chosen sex' in an emergency too? Is it ok to acknowledge bio sex at the point of looking up their blood results or considering likely diagnoses?

If you can be sacked for not being validating enough (colluding in the patients' belief) where is that line drawn? Patients turn up at a&e convinced someone is chasing them, convinced they shouldn't eat, convinced they should harm themselves.

The article gives no real detail. Did he wilfully and deliberately offend people, persistently using a name they asked not to be called or did he have a hypothetical conversation in which he expressed his difficulty with what was being expected?

If it's more the former and less the latter then maybe he was tricky with patients and made them and colleagues uncomfortable etc. If it's more the latter and less the former then we are all potentially in trouble.

It's interesting that he lost his job for one government employer but he is presumably securely employed by the NHS and there's been no concern from the GMC. Makes me think it's more the latter than the former.

When I worked in mental health, we had a patient who thought he was Napoleon and liked to be addressed as your imperial highness

We didn’t go along with that of course because he obviously wasn’t Napoleon. Why should someone in their work place be compelled to so something that they know is false ie refer to a man by female pronouns?