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'.

@Clymene from what I've read it is permissable for male doctors under certain circumstances ( such as emergency or if they are the only person able to treat) for a female Muslim to be treated by a male.
I'm also not sure if that extends to nurses & aftercare, my understanding is that it's particularly considered in more
intimate surgery not necessarily aftercare. I might be wrong though.

I also wonder why the woman in question considered that the male doctor is more trustworthy than say a male nurse. She was ok with the doctor.

The point is, that she could have asked for the moon on a stick, and they could have replied with well the moon is a little far away, and we're all out of sticks. But that's not what happened and it's irrelevant what she actually asked for, at this point.

Because the reason they didn't address her request was not because they were all out of sticks and the moon's a tad out of reach, it's because they didn't share her values. And cancelled the operation on that basis. And then compounded the whole thing, by actually writing that down in an email to her.

It's not about compromise, it's not about trying to accede a request with limited resources. It's about the reason why they said they would not countenance her request. It was because, and, again, they actually wrote this down, they didn't share her values.

But, as an aside, a sexual assault survivor asking for females to look after her intimate care subsequent to her surgery, is a perfectly normal request. Of course, people understand that it's not always possible to comply with it. But as a request, it's totally normal.

What's not normal is saying no on the basis that she wouldn't validate a man's feelings.

I also wonder why the woman in question considered that the male doctor is more trustworthy than say a male nurse. She was ok with the doctor.

She has said why. A man in a wig and make up barged in when she was having some intimate pre-op procedures done and made eye contact with her. She felt as though it was connected to her gender critical views that she had made clear previously.

It wasn't a surgeon, or any of the surgical team. It was quite possibly someone who could be assigned to her intimate care post surgery.

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

A patient hardly sees their surgeon. A patient sees the nursing staff a lot more often (relatively - nowhere near as often as it should be but my point still pertains). Last time I was in hospital (orthopaedic patient) I was fine with a male surgeon who I meet in clinic and then briefly in theatres just before my op, for which I was unconscious. We know sexual assault can happen in theatre - there was the oral rape(s) by the anaesthetist in Brazil recently in a theatre full of people - but less likely there than in other settings.

Then I was back on the ward. Paralysed from the waist down. That was the point at which I needed female carers. When I had unknowingly wet the bed in the early hours and had to be cleaned, rolled over so the sheet under me could be changed. I was very vulnerable and that is why a female nurse is so important. Can't all you 'no difference between male doctors and nurses' see what nonsense you talk?

My paralysis lasted around 12 hours. I know my vulnerability was very short-lived and was nothing compared to what some go through. We have to fight. We have no choice.

I never saw the surgeon again.

@Datun no I am talking about her letter to the hospital. She said that the male doctor would be ok to work with her. I'm not referring to the person popping their head around the door.
I was wondering why this male is trustworthy but not anyone else.

There was a team of surgeons, it wasn't just one man. But the intimate care that she would have to have after her operation is what the nurses would be doing.

I read that they couldn't comply because of the demand for only male staff (apart from the doctor surgeon who patient was ok with).
And the comment about values was about her comments about not agreeing to use preferred pronouns, amongst other things. Presumably the hospital has staff who might be offended by this.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm saying that this is how I understand it.

I had a series of surgeries at a different HCA hospital in London a few years ago. As a patient, you are alone in a closed room with the nurse doing your intimate care after surgery. It is a much more vulnerable situation than the theatre with a whole team looking on.

Presumably the hospital has staff who might be offended by this

So what? It is illegal to cancel her surgery for this reason.

Offended? So not grown ups then? They really should choose another career then.

I read that they couldn't comply because of the demand for only male staff (apart from the doctor surgeon who patient was ok with).

All the links above give you the full picture. She was refused on grounds of political belief: specifically that when saying she wanted only female staff nursing care due to management of her PTSD being a crucial part of her recovery, she was not prepared to make an exception for male staff who identified as genders other than men.

And the comment about values was about her comments about not agreeing to use preferred pronouns, amongst other things. Presumably the hospital has staff who might be offended by this.

Hence the whole point: you cannot discriminate against someone on grounds of their belief. Hospital staff cannot withhold care from people they view as heretics, and medical staff are there to care for patients and expected to know about things like faith, culture, trauma, PTSD, and put the needs and wellbeing of their patient first. Not first demand that the patient meets all their needs or they will flounce.

Legally she has them on toast. A bit of kindness, religious tolerance and inclusivity could have managed this without any issues for anyone involved. However instead they chose this response. And this is going to be one very expensive, very public, very damaging bit of silliness on their part, that does TQ+ people no favours at all in the press.

And the comment about values was about her comments about not agreeing to use preferred pronouns, amongst other things. Presumably the hospital has staff who might be offended by this.

Yes. Straightforward discrimination.

This. I have been reading this thread, wondering if some posters are literal children, whose only knowledge of healthcare comes from an Early Learning Centre dress-up kit!

The odious IW's take on all this.

I find the attitude that women should just accept what's offered and be grateful truly chilling.

And this is going to be one very expensive, very public, very damaging bit of silliness on their part

good

And odious is exactly the right word wait

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
.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.