Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

[Imnobody4]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11316141/Hospital-bans-sex-assault-victim-op-female-care-request.html

I feel quite sick at this.

She was stunned then to receive an email from the hospital's chief executive Maxine Estop Green telling her the operation was off.

She told her the hospital 'did not share her beliefs' and she should make alternative arrangements for her surgery.

The message added the hospital was committed to protecting staff from what it described as 'unacceptable distress'.

Emma urged them to reconsider, adding in a further message she thought they had misunderstood her requests, which she said were entirely within the law.

The hospital said it would offer a private room but would NOT facilitate her requests for single-sex care after her operation.

It also mentioned her comment about pronouns and said it had a responsibility to protect staff from 'discrimination and harassment'.

But, particularly given HCA is US-owned, I wonder if they were concerned about potential legal action resulting from any issues arising during her stay?

Well, now they’ve got pending legal action resulting to her non-stay instead!

If an American company is worried about a legal issue arising in a foreign country where their business operates, they should obviously approach a qualified legal expert in that country.

Either they didn’t, which would suggest they weren’t actually worried about potential legal action.

Or they did, and ignored the advice given because UK Equalities law conflicts with their corporate beliefs.

Or they approached an expert in Stonewall Law, rather than actual law.

Or they approached an expert in American state or federal law, which even if it did support their position (and I’m not convinced it would without being tested in court) is obviously irrelevant.

None of the above are a good look for the company, who you would expect to have a shit hot team of lawyers on the payroll, or at the very least, on speed dial.

Maybe they’ve had some Equity Diversity and Inclusivity ‘training’? Have Mermaids been in with the genderjellybabies slide?

So could a male or trans staff member bring them toast? Can a transwoman nurse check on her or give medication?

Was the expectation that she would respond differently/accept different care from a TW than from any other male member of staff?

That's the one and only sticking point.

If the answer is yes, then the punishment is for being a heretic. Not for unmeetable expectations due to staffing issues.

Females have the right to perceive a male as a male the same as any other male, regardless about how that male feels internally about their identity or wishes to be perceived. The male's wishes do not outweigh hers. The male's perceptions do not trump hers. And anyone requiring a non-consenting female to validate a male with her body to assure him of his gender identity as the price of receiving care?

Has a major problem between their ears.

It seems pretty clear than legal bods on Twitter are convinced the way the hospital acted is discrimination. I suspect Maxine whatshername will be out of a job pretty sharpish

Apparently she hasn't been in it very long.

They didn't refuse her because they struggled to comply with her request. They refused her because they disagreed with her belief system.

She literally says "my patient records showed that I refused to use pronouns".

What do you think a pronoun is? Please tell me how anyone can speak English without using pronouns. She is making a nonsense statement.

But it depends on exactly what this woman is requesting. All nursing AND ancillary staff was mentioned. So could a male or trans staff member bring them toast? Can a transwoman nurse check on her or give medication?
My ex was male and would still provide some care for female muslim patients within reason. Was this woman requesting segregation beyond that required by the most religious patients?

For goodness' sake, it doesn't matter. This discussion of how much same-sex care is practical etc etc is a complete red herring. She made a completely legal and reasonable request, and the hospital not only refused it (which might have been equally reasonable on their side, depending on logistics and staffing) but they refused to treat her at all because she had made it. Or rather because of the perceived 'values' underlying it - which as others have pointed out, are protected by the Equality Act.

They are fucking idiots to specify it was because of her 'values', because that (IANAL) looks like a clear admission of discrimination. I cannot see how this could not be illegal.

I don't think there are any grounds for this really to go any further and the woman has a male surgeon - that's far more intimate and she will be far more vulnerable whilst under a GA then any of the care provided afterwards.

I used to be a theatre nurse, and the big difference is that there is a whole team of people in there, and never once did I see an all male team in a theatre. When I had treatment a few years ago, I said I wanted female only for pre and post op, due to PTSD. I specified that the theatre personnel didn’t matter to me for the above reason, and also that I wouldn’t be aware, therefore wouldn’t suffer any triggering experiences.

The surgeons and anaesthetic team went out of their way to ensure a female only presence in theatre regardless, I felt extremely safe.

For context, I didn’t have my breast lump (which turned out to be a tumour) investigated for nearly a year after I’d noticed because of the dread of being vulnerable and exposed. I got lucky that it was treatable.

It’s frightening to me to think of how future hospital treatment could go - one thing I know about predatory men, however they identify, is that they will want access to traumatised women because they are being denied it.

...aaand everyone else got there before me and said it better. 😃

Oh come on, that's disingenuousness on crap, what is the point of this?

She quite obviously means she will not use pronouns she does not believe in or agree with for someone she perceives as one sex but who would like her to use their chosen language for them.

She literally says "my patient records showed that I refused to use pronouns".

What do you think a pronoun is? Please tell me how anyone can speak English without using pronouns. She is making a nonsense statement.

You either know nothing about this issue or you're being fatuous because you think it's terribly clever and amusing. I know what a pronoun is. Tell the next trans person you meet that "their" pronoun is actually "I", I dare you.

anyone requiring a non-consenting female to validate a male with her body to assure him of his gender identity

This is what we are looking at here. This woman is required to validate a man or crucial health care will be denied.

Has been denied.

Because she said no.

Karalmid, you clearly believe in compelled speech. That's your choice. Many of us don't for the exact same reasons as the person who was refused care in this hospital.

Ultimately you think that the right of a male to be perceived as a woman is more important than the woman receiving care.

Otherwise what is the point of your posts?

I don't know how to do links, but on Twitter there is a petition about this.

they will want access to traumatised women because they are being denied it.

Quite.

Any male hcp who sees a female patient's refusal of consent as an intolerable boundary they have to break and control for their own needs?

Should not be anywhere near that job or in any profession providing care. Any hcp worth their salt cares about their patient and is capable of putting the patient's needs first, plus knows and cares about things like faith, belief, trauma, culture, diversity, accessibility, those sort of really basic things.

Those who believe that females who won't validate male people by providing intimate access should be denied health care as punishment also have absolutely no place in a caring workforce. This is a fundamental capacity issue.

For goodness' sake, it doesn't matter. This discussion of how much same-sex care is practical etc etc is a complete red herring. She made a completely legal and reasonable request, and the hospital not only refused it (which might have been equally reasonable on their side, depending on logistics and staffing) but they refused to treat her at all because she had made it. Or rather because of the perceived 'values' underlying it - which as others have pointed out, are protected by the Equality Act.

They are fucking idiots to specify it was because of her 'values', because that (IANAL) looks like a clear admission of discrimination. I cannot see how this could not be illegal.

This. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender critical beliefs, just as it would be illegal to pull an operation because someone was trans.

I feel like my cousin Bunbury would have something to say about this.
I'm enraged though, and also gobsmacked at how unprofessional they are to state that they cancelled it because of her beliefs not matching the hospital's beliefs.

Again - unless they screen all patients' beliefs to match them up to a list of 'allowed' and 'not allowed' ones then they are very clearly being discriminatory.

It's getting hard not to join up the dots on the 'exceptions' thing here in posts arguing that it's justified to refuse this woman care for her beliefs.

We expect all hcps to put their patient's needs and best interests above their own

We expect all hcps to not be using contact with patients to meet their own needs and agenda

We expect all hcps to be trained in equality and aware that their patients will come from a range of cultures, faiths, backgrounds, emotional and health needs such as trauma or DV, and to be able to meet and respond to those needs to enable vulnerable patients or patients from those groups to access care

We expect all charities and organisations working with children to follow a standard of safeguarding which all their employees are trained in and adhere to

Are these blanket statements true? Or is the implication to add in brackets (excepting those who are TQ+) ? Is it being suggested here that being TQ+ presents a need that means this equality of expectation is not reasonable? Do all TQ+ people agree with this? And what are the implications of this?

The hospital had already agreed that the woman would receive post op care from women, it sounds like a standard request for them given their patient profile. It was only after she clarified that women meant biological females that they then cancelled her operation because of her "values".

It's the equivalent of a restaurant agreeing to serve a vegetarian meal, then changing their mind because the customer double checks there's no pork derived products for Halal / Kosher reasons.

Exactly. They couldn't cope with her refusal to unequivocally deny all males access to her unconsenting body.

They wanted to force her to accept a subset of males because those males demand it.

Again - unless they screen all patients' beliefs to match them up to a list of 'allowed' and 'not allowed' ones then they are very clearly being discriminatory.

I really want to see the diagram in their employee handbook where they demonstrate how Genderism and all the other major world religions are in alignment but the GC position of ‘sex is immutable and sometimes sex differences matter in healthcare and in law’ is at odds with all the others.

I mean, there is some proper weird shit in religious texts, to use a JKism, does the hospital’s parent company actually believe the stuff about that Mormon fella said about his magical disappearing evidence?
Or are Mormons out too?

And if Mormons are out, does that mean GC feminists are now crypto-Mormons?

it’s all rather stupid.
Beliefs clash and it’s impossible to agree with everyone’s beliefs on everything, which is why we’ve had to legislate protections to prevent one group of believers being persecuted (or simply denied service) by another different group of believers.

Reminds me of the person who posted yesterday saying they wouldn’t want any pro-life woman at their feminist events, and when asked if they stuck by their statement even if it meant automatically excluding Hindu and Sikh women?

Crickets, tumbleweed, etc.

Again - unless they screen all patients' beliefs to match them up to a list of 'allowed' and 'not allowed' ones then they are very clearly being discriminatory.

I should add - although it's obvious - that even having 'allowed' and 'not allowed' beliefs is discriminatory - but to only subject one person to this discriminatory practice is a weird sort of double discrimination!

I would really like to know whether their female Muslim patients are expected to receive “single sex” care from men in wigs.

I've had NHS treatment at the Princess Grace in the past, I doubt I'm the only one.

Its also irrelevant to the issue at hand, other than to reinforce that both the NHS and the private sector are failing women and failing to provide single sex treatment even where there is a documented experience of trauma.

other than to reinforce that both the NHS and the private sector are failing women

Which was actually what the Equality Act was for

To ensure that all have equality of access to services and provisions with regard to specific boundaries known to present themselves. As opposed to providing privilege and get inconvenient boundaries out of the way of a tiny percentage of male people.

Is it ok for taxpayers to be denied accessible services on the grounds of their not being able to prioritise and enable a person by enacting beliefs they do not hold? Particularly when this enacting involves intimate access to their body?

These are questions I honestly don't believe I'm having to ask. What the actual fuck has happened to society since the introduction of all this political ideology?