Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

Your continued assertion that she was to blame for the hospital illegally cancelling her operation is victim blaming.

The only people responsible for cancelling her operation without discussion were the hospital staff. They were the ones who refused to open a dialogue. How can you blame this on the patient?

@red4321 you're ignoring the fact that the Princess Grace Hospital CEO illegally refused her the operation. As a lawyer, she no doubt expected a well respected professionally run hospital to respond to her concerns in a professional way, within the bounds of the law.

It did not.

Or do professional standards not apply to trans members of staff?

I think we know the answer to this.

Yes, you ARE victim-blaming, @red4321 . You're saying she should have used a nicer tone and then maybe she might not have been punished.

It's fucked up.

She was requesting her rights within the law. Nothing that she asked for was in any way extraordinary. And she had just experienced a male barging in on her, which was terrifying. Whatever. It doesn't matter what she said or how she said it. The hospital discriminated against her - not because of her tone, but because they don't "share her beliefs". They explicitly state this - there's no way around it, I'm afraid.

"I'm not victim-blaming. I'm only pointing out that she could have avoided this by doing something differently."

And by the way, I share her views. That's not what I'm referring to.

Has the hospital responded in any way to the allegation that a member of staff intruded on an intimate procedure, made eye contact with a patient, and left without apology? Regardless of that person's sex/gender identity that is surely serious misconduct which needs investigating. Or do professional standards not apply to trans members of staff?

I'm not victim-blaming. As a woman, I strongly support the rights of women. My comment was simply about whether a different approach might have opened up a dialogue so the operation could have gone ahead.

She had the right to write a letter referring to the various laws covering her treatment. And her beliefs on pronouns etc.

Or she could have written a shorter email stating that (a) she was unhappy at being barged in on and (b) she'd like female only medical care after the operation and arranging a meeting to discuss the options.

I also have a tendency to go in all guns blazing but, equally, there are times when I've precipitated a situation that could have been avoided.

Asking an as assault victim who suffers from PTSD to compromise rather than expecting them hospital to work within the law is a bit shitty.

She has the right to say whatever she chooses. But she's the one that's lost out. They're not an NHS hospital, they can decline treatment (as they did) although I agree that their response was cack-handed.

What are you on about, cack-handed? They discriminated against a woman because of her beliefs. They even explicitly state that.

You are victim blaming. Stop it.

*They were then totally upfront and open that the punishment for that is being refused vital surgery.

from this point on I mean the hospital, not the individual in question.

Red you're bringing a sense of reason and rationality to a situation which is not only hopelessly misogynistic, it's off the scale insane.

This woman is a sexual assault survivor who is entirely familiar with the way men everywhere are enabled by trans ideology. And, to her, certainly (and me), one of those individuals deliberately made their presence felt to intimidate her when she was at her most vulnerable, and just before she was in the very situation she was dreading.

They were then totally upfront and open that the punishment for that is being refused vital surgery.

The blatant display of power is horrifying. But, due to their complete ignorance of equality law, they didn't care at all about showing the misogyny underlying it. It's truly frightening.

And remember, according to the trans 'umbrella', for many men, this is a paraphila. A paraphilia which requires the compliance and presence of women, whether they consent or not.

And paraphilia or not, this woman was quite clear that she did not consent.

So a hospital cancelled her surgery. Including the entire surgical team and all the ancillary care. To the tune of thousands of ponds.

That's how powerful this lobby is.

Just going to say it again. They cancelled her operation because they did not share her beliefs. Everything else is irrelevant and a distraction.

Exactly. I'm not sure if you don't realise, red, that they have acted illegally (being a business doesn't mean you can decline treatment freely, for any reason, you are bound by the Equality Act) or if you're just victim-blaming ("she's smaller than him, obviously she has every right to say what she did but he was obviously able to hit her if he wanted to and she's got more to lose so should have been more careful").

As for the suggestion that pointing out the illegality of what they're proposing to do making them more likely to turn her down because she is obviously legal-minded and might sue if they did treat her...? Not sure where to start with that.

No idea why people are banging on about the male doctor. It’s not relevant as the scenarios are different. I’ve had 5 surgeries for different things over the years plus a lengthy bout of radiotherapy. In all cases I have never seen the doctor/surgeon alone. In all cases the operating theatre was staffed with a full team from surgeon, to anaesthetist, to various support staff.

in all cases aftercare was dealt with by the nurses, aside from a single post op doctor visit (with nurses so aftercare instructions could be given ). The aftercare nurses would generally be on their own when they came to me.

As I've said numerous times, I don't think the hospital handled it particularly well. But I think focusing on the key issues would have made it more likely to find a compromise where the surgery went ahead.

But the hospital chose not to do this. Instead they chose to cancel without discussion because she didn't share their religious beliefs. This is discrimination which is against the law.

They have behaved illegally @red4321. They refused her treatment based on her personal beliefs.

How can you blame any of this on the patient? She stated her needs and explained why it was important and within the law to provide single-sex care. The hospital then cancelled her operation with hours to spare, saying it was because they didn't like her (aka 'share her values').

She has the right to say whatever she chooses. But she's the one that's lost out. They're not an NHS hospital, they can decline treatment (as they did) although I agree that their response was cack-handed.

As I've said numerous times, I don't think the hospital handled it particularly well. But I think focusing on the key issues would have made it more likely to find a compromise where the surgery went ahead.

I understand why she did it - she's a lawyer and backed up her points comprehensively. Equally, if you work in the legal department of HCA, it raises the likelihood of a patient taking legal action if something doesn't go to plan. Ultimately they're a business that weighs up the risks and benefits of taking on patients.

So, no, I'm not blaming her but it's a shame that a compromise couldn't have been found so the surgery could go ahead.

I wonder how the delightful India will react if the women does die because she is not fit for the surgery she is now offered.

I think both parties could have handled it better. The legalese letters were probably a red flag to the hospital but they shouldn't have cancelled the operation without speaking to the patient. I presume their lack of willingness to do so was the desire to have it documented in writing, rather than over the phone.

How can you blame any of this on the patient? She stated her needs and explained why it was important and within the law to provide single-sex care. The hospital then cancelled her operation with hours to spare, saying it was because they didn't like her (aka 'share her values').

It's discrimination, pure and simple.

You can't tell victims of discrimination, oh if only you'd been nicer, it wouldn't have happened. Well, you can, but I'm afraid it makes you a bit of a cunt.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm saying that this is how I understand it.

The reason you're understanding it wrong is because you're ignoring the part where they email her and say "we're cancelling your operation at extremely short notice because we don't share your values."

Have some of you had as little experience of hospital as your posts suggest?

In fairness, experiences differ. I also had orthopaedic surgery but at The Princess Grace. You might not have seen your surgeon post-surgery but I saw mine every day for 15-30 minutes. By the end, the nurses left me to it so he spent longer in my room than anyone else.

I've thought about her letter. While she absolutely has the right to say what she wanted to, I wondered if she'd have been better focusing on the key issue of wanting female nursing staff where possible.

The comments about pronouns beliefs became the main source of contention - I'm assuming to make it clear that she only wanted nurses who were born females but I'm not sure this was necessarily the best way to go about it. It put the hospital on the spot about their support for any transgender employees.

In her shoes, I'd have complained about the person barging in and requested female medical staff post surgery (where possible) or a female chaperone to be present if not.

I think both parties could have handled it better. The legalese letters were probably a red flag to the hospital but they shouldn't have cancelled the operation without speaking to the patient. I presume their lack of willingness to do so was the desire to have it documented in writing, rather than over the phone.

There were two emails. You are basing your thinking only on the second. The first was a bald removal of services because she ‘didn’t share their values’. The second, possibly realising what they’d exposed themselves to, attempted to shift the cancellation cause to include resource management issues as an excuse. However, even in that second letter they reinforced their discriminatory thinking. This won’t fly.

There is no excuse for anyone to walk in on an intimate exam. None whatsoever. That person and the chaperone who failed to do anything sensible about it should be disciplined.
Incidentally, none of the naysayers have complained about female chaperones being actual women. You all know why they exist.

I wonder if the hospital does 'gender reassignment' surgeries or is part of a wider group that does. Maybe they are trying to show allegiance in order to cash in
.