Motorina
In practice it's rare, and I'm amazed his A+E job allowed him to decline to treat all trans patients, which is what the tribunal determination says happened.
Had not treated and declined are 2 very different conclusions.
Section 70 to 73 did not provide evidence of a decline to treat all trans patients just a statement about a remembered conversation which was disputed.
The tribunal determination was that OH said this happened.
If OH's version was accurate, OH should have raised this potential refusal to preform any assessments for a vulnerable cohort of applicants. OH should not be looking for an exemption from a trainee who would use a name but not 'wrong sex' pronouns and or titles rather OH should have been asking HR to review the employment offer.
Providing treatment while offending the recipient in not optimal but possible.
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
white patient refused an South Asian consultant anaesthetist
.. that he'd done so to some extent because he felt that his employers in the Trust couldn't be relied upon to have his back.
Is this not informed consent in action?
"Person X is the only one who can do the proceedure, without this proceedure you can die"
"I know, but people with [Z] cant touch me"
And its why the process is before the paitent is legally incapacitated get to sign a "we can do anything if it saves your life" consent for operations.
Without consent the HCP would be engaging in an assault so had to hand off. The assault bit is dismissed by TRA who claim specific or limiting consent can be ignored.
Then the Trust have 3 (?) options
•refuse to provide an alternative at all
•provide an alternative once one becomes available (but other staff scheduled could refuse to work)
•obtain a court order to allow the consultant provide the service.
The Trust are unlikely write a policy document to position the incident as the male paitent seeing a female doctor demanding a male doctor and being told he is mistaken as the consultant is male.
Brighton Trust policy was that a woman objecting to a male who identified as a woman on a ward was to be treated by staff as if she was a White woman objecting to a Black woman on the ward and is to be told by staff there is no man on the ward (The racist man = black woman trope was accepted/invisable). It was a direct instruction by a Employer to an Employee to lie to a patient.
The Hospital also needed a system so She/They Jane (a male with GRC) will not end up treat John who is a "female staff only consent" patient, all without disclosing Jane's PC to other staff or John. The Trust has liability issues if it and/or Jane gets sued by John and Jane can sue as an employee with a PC.
Thats why the wording sex or gender became so important in the Scottish Rape legislation.
Can a male insert objects and body parts inside the Witness who consented on the condition the State appointed expert witness was female and that male not commit an (sexual) assault?
On right to use a pronoun v. a right to have a specific pronoun/word spoken by another person within the context of manifestations of belief.
Joe Bloggs, male, not married & never was, no mental issues, is not within the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (as male is not proposing to undergo, is not undergoing or has not undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the male's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex).
Decides, as an act of civil disobedience, to use the title Mrs, first name IdoBlowjobs, surname BlowjobsAreFun, pronoun they/them.
What legislation provides Joe the right to be addressed by these: the name(s), the title and the pronoun.
To rephrase this what legislation obliges CitizenU to speak someone else's chosen name, chosen title and chosen pronoun.
The judgement argues/concludes that there is legislation which obliges CitizenU to use/speak pronouns and or titles and also that CitizenU has no right to silence.
I dont thing the law as written will support either conclusion.
Point of order has the Court supporting first party verified title and pronoun documentation for Emma or Burton J or Langstaff?
Anyway that leaves the employment contract with attached policy and proceedure.
Policy is the written rule, the internal legislation of an organisation. The umbrella. Per policy 'aim/action A' is deliberately included, deliberatly excluded or not considered while the policy was formulated. So include and exclude are under the umbrella, while not considered is out in the rain.
Process is the way the task is done there can be many processes which results in the task been "done".
Documented process is the way the task is done to ensure the policy is followed narrowing the way the task is done to a single method. Organisations use it for human resource management quality control.
Training is primarily about process.
Section 48 OH indicated that OH would use/document pronoun other than she/he if requested.
If Meow is requested are all subsequent staff legally and/or contractually obliged to use this pronoun?
** Section 50 evidence is presented that in 2017 the DWP process failed.
HH apparently managed a compliant without referring to the written policy (no151) or a review of any written process documentation.
No process documentation was created even though the GRA 2004 Section 22 has data disclosure obligations.
NB if HH had investigated at that stage the matter should have been escalated up to the ranks. Clear written process which aligned with the written policy should have been produced and handed out at the training.
The enforcement then relys on unwritten policy no 151 is silent on titles and pronouns and unwritten procedure, just a general understandings of what should be done.
If the review and update had happened there would be a clear contractual obligation of follow the policy and get paid to do so. That could be a lawfull contractual term.
Adam as male and Eve as female, Created in God's Image, Original Sin, Marraige, Babies as branding, an origin story and/or actual belief is a foundation teaching to Jewish, Christian and Islamic education.
No clear policy no clear procedure indicates no consideration of PC religion and beleif.