Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

However, there is an obligation for hospitals not to discriminate against patients on the basis of beliefs. Keep up!

The patient can sue all she wants. There’s absolutely no obligation on hospitals to guarantee all female care.

I'm really glad she is getting the treatment she needs.

Let's hope she gets well, gets strong and sues them for all they are worth.

Oh thats a relief

and i agree…i hope she sues

It's great news for that poor woman who needs urgent non politicised medical care and whose health must have been massively impacted by the stress...

But we can't have a petition and fight for every single woman needing health care on a case by case basis. What is going to change for the half the UK population who are female?

This is a massive problem. There are many, many, many more of us needing access to single sex care than there are male people needing to exercise their right to invade women's boundaries as part of their job. Perhaps the female MPs who are doing nothing about this and so presumably are ok with this would donate their time and bodies to meet this need during their paid hours if they think it so important to support?

Caroline Farrow says HCA have agreed to operate on the patient in a different hospital with a Da Vinci robot. Good.

I hope she still sues.

A development has been announced on twitter.

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1584152399706730496

Would a service dealing with victims of racist violence allow support workers in blackface?!

Yes, to insist on imposing himself into a situation where it could only cause harm, despite supposedly being there to help abused women is absolutely mind-blowing!

Time and time again, men with gender dysphoria seem determined to inveigle themselves into women's spaces. They want to force women to pander to them, despite (or maybe because of) the distress and harm it causes those women.
This is the very dark reality of male narcissism and in many cases, autogynaephilia.
They are not content to dress as women, they have to confront women and defeat them.

Strong words, I'm afraid.
While I have great compassion for anyone suffering from the emotional pain of gender dysphoria, we can't allow another aspect of male privilege to cause real harm to women like this.

Who was the TW a very long time ago now, who fought through the courts at the start of all this for the right to counsel female rape victims regardless of whether or not the female rape victims wanted this? Why might a male person really, really want to sit in a room listening to a very vulnerable female explaining her rape in detail?

Kimberly Nixon v Vancouver Rape Relief.

And immediately we're into the grounds of

if a male employee is willing to fight for the right to intimately touch and care for female patients - even with full awareness that many females will not want this and that it is not in their best interests or compatible with access or patient centred care?

Their motives are not good. We're just into the scale of how not good - a scale that runs from 'I want what I want and don't care about females' to the kind of delightful medic publicised today for using his access to vulnerable females to orally rape them during their operations. There isn't a 'nice' end to the scale of 'I want to use vulnerable females for my own agenda', there is nothing nice or good about it.

Who was the TW a very long time ago now, who fought through the courts at the start of all this for the right to counsel female rape victims regardless of whether or not the female rape victims wanted this? Why might a male person really, really want to sit in a room listening to a very vulnerable female explaining her rape in detail?

Time to be a lot, lot less innocent about this. The failure to face up to the realities is no longer 'nice', or 'non judgemental', it is reaching the point of actively enabling those realities to happen.

Why are they scared of making it an occupational requirement in certain departments?

Because they have been told by lobby groups that it's discriminatory.

'stonewall law'.

Yes they can but why will almost nowhere do it? Theres a huge market for guaranteed female only care, if I had the money I’d definitely pay for it.

So many women of all ages and faiths request it all the time, every day and night, inpatient and in community that the NHS are certainly aware it is wanted. Why are they scared of making it an occupational requirement in certain departments?

RIDICULOUS

What a well thought out and coherent rebuttal, well done you.

RIDICULOUS

It seems that this hospital , like most hospitals, can provide female only care in practice for short stays and has done.

They would have been very foolish to guarantee it, in writing within one day notice without a full risk assessment and contingency plan and new legal contacts drawn up in response to a solicitors letter.

I can see that her care requests were understandable but just impossible to guarantee . Lots of experienced HCPs here have explained why . Shame they got shouted down , as provided very good information in general. Stuff that a lot of readers would benefit from knowing, the practicalities of care, what requests can be met, what can’t, what Annexe B means etc.

However in the specifics of this case the reply from the CEO was despicable. The brazen confidence to comment on her values and reject them was shocking. Beyond shocking. Believe they would have postponed the operation for anyone else wanting the same care stipulations ,pending meeting to risk asses, get legal advice and offer compromise etc but I bet a million they wouldn’t have had the absolute cheek to put in writing a criticism of their values. I bet all the millions they wouldn’t. TRAs have so much power to influence policy and procedures is mind blowing. The CEO thought her email was not just acceptable but would prevent HCA being sued!! No one should listen to TRA people , they will bring your organization down.

Seriously? You skipped 22 pages to write that?

And the hospital is not permitted to discriminate against a patient on the grounds of (among other things) religion or belief. Therefore while they aren't obliged to go out of their way to fulfil their patient's needs (so if they've got a practical reason that it can't be done, then that's fine), they can't just refuse treatment because of those beliefs.

Just like I couldn't say to a TRA "we don't serve your kind here" because that would be discriminating against them on the grounds of their beliefs. However I could refuse to serve a male person on the grounds that they were male - in certain circumstances, that is allowed.

Yes. It was completely understood, ^obviously%, that there are certain circumstances, where men should not be.

And it's the likes of lobby groups like Stonewall, who have convinced people otherwise.

Just one speech from someone in government authority saying, of course, women should have their own wards, toilets, prisons. And no, that doesn't include transwomen. Get a grip. Otherwise face prosecution for indirect sex discrimination. If even one woman self excludes on the basis that you are including males, that is indirect discrimination.

There is a specific example in the text of the Equality Act that explains the provision of services to women victims of sexual assault can exclude 'transwomen'.

Yes, including those with a GRC.

...... I have no words.

You know that quote about 'why aren't women so angry they're burning the whole world down right now?'

Remind me again, why aren't we?

OMG!

There's a video on twitter showing an anaesthetist orally raping a woman in the middle of her fucking c-section.

But women are wrong to be wary of men whilst in hospital 🙄

Go woke, go broke.

There is a specific example in the text of the Equality Act that explains the provision of services to women victims of sexual assault can exclude 'transwomen'.

The act specifical recognises that vulnerable women can be harmed by having 'transwomen' present in therapeutic environments.

so so true.