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'.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

I think we know the answer to this.

@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.

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?

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.

it's not cack handedness. It's an open and loud display of power.

Was it cackhanded when a tw lied to get the position of running a rape crisis centre and told the women they need to reframe their trauma to adhere to trans ideology?

Is it cackhanded when rapists are put in women's prisons so they can assault the women?

Or when male individuals are allowed to decimate women's sport.

This is not cack handedness. This is a wholesale attack on women's rights.

And yes, telling her if only she had changed her tone, compromised a bit, not been quite as assertive, she wouldn't have been punished, is absolutely victim blaming.

Christ. What next? if only she'd said sorry?

Some very clearly divide the world into two groups of people

(1) the people who have to be treated extremely carefully and never subject to any sort of "microaggression", or questioned about anything and must have "their truth" fully respected, and whose every transgression of law or ethics can be justified

and

(2) the ones who if anything happens to them, no matter how illegal or unethical, almost certainly did something to deserve it, and and can be endlessly lectured about how they should do things differently.

Sadly for her, it appears the woman here is part of group 2. Maybe someone can explain to me how this group 1 versus group 2 determination is made?

How can she get promoted to the "no microaggressions" group? Because I think she might have had just a few. Maybe.

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.

Not just any male, a male individual who was an adherent to the ideology that she was expressly concerned about.

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

How short do you think this email could be exactly?
Female only no longer means cunty type women. Female now means anyone who thinks they are one. So the only way these days to ensure everyone knows what you mean is use "cunty type women" or wang on about pronouns. Even saying born female doesn't work anymore.
I can just imagine how well "I'd like to have aftercare only done by cunty type people" would go down in an email to anyone let alone a hospital, sent by a lawyer too.

And then we get to why the hell should she send shorter emails, check her tone etc. She is entitled to send anything or nothing and any length in between.

And what meeting can you possibly arrange with hours to go before surgery happens? How will you feel if the meeting goes really badly and then there you are in surgery in a hospital where a whole lot of people seemingly dont like you. Do you think she even wants the operation there any more?

Don't forget she put in a dignity complaint and this was ignored or not dealt with. So she was a good little woman and did follow some of the rules.
This is scary, not only the responses on here, but that this has happened because of her belief that men cannot be women. The power imbalance is tipped in favour of men who say they are women. We should all be concerned.

This is scary, not only the responses on here, but that this has happened because of her belief that men cannot be women.

And that people who don't respect that, will go miles out of their way to supply you with a male against your consent.

This ideology seeks out the most inappropriate places for men to be. Women's prisons, rape refuges, female sport, breastfeeding workshops, lesbian dating sites.

This woman was having major surgery, from all accounts highly technical, and she would be incapacitated in a very vulnerable way afterwards.

Exactly the kind of testing ground that the ideology seeks out.

She has every right to state her preference for female only staff but the hospital can't guarantee that will be the case - only that they will try where it's safe and practical to do so. What if someone went off sick and the only cover was male? She hasn't given her consent to that so the hospital can't perform her surgery.

No, that is not why they have refused her surgery.

They have not said they cannot meet her need for female only nursing, they have not said it is a practical difficulty or attempted to negotiate with her for ways around this that may work for both them and her.

This is purely and simply because she would not make an exception for and enable the pretense that a male nurse is a female if they wish it, and permit them privileged intimate access to her that she would not permit to a non TQ+ male. That is the unacceptable request they will not meet.

Read the thread. Read the evidence. They've been very blunt about it. It's no good identifying as it being something reasonable, rational, palatable: it isn't.