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'.

What is the purpose of typing so much nonsense?

What do they even think they’re accomplishing? What cause or goal are they advancing? Do they believe they’re persuading anyone of anything - if so who, and what? Is it argument for argument’s sake?

this thread is a very strange reading experience.

The contempt for women and their reality is so strong, that if I said as a Muslim woman that I wanted single sex care due to religious restrictions I think they would try to accommodate me. But if a woman has suffered sexual trauma and requires single sex care her views are considered irrational/bigoted/hysterical etc.

Which will mean increasing numbers of females from vulnerable populations will just not put themselves in harms way and stop presenting for health care. It will have become inaccessible to them.

My mother would have jeopardised her health and self-discharge rather than have a male member of staff do anything more personal than put a cast on her arm. She would wait for a female member of staff to do it. Which was fine back then, because no-one would ever have dreamed of gaslighting her over a staff-member's sex, and she was told when a female worker was available.

But in today's environment, if she was unfortunate enough to be lied to, as the recommendations in that Annex B NHS document suggested, she simply would have refused to engage with health care again. Unless the pain got to a level she couldn't ignore.

Faith and culture aren't acceptable reasons for females to present boundaries to male wishes either.

I think it was a TW Labour women's officer who announced that if a woman's culture or belief meant they had sex based boundaries it was their fault for following the faith and they needed to abandon it (and presumably their families and friends and social circle as you do overnight) in order to be able to enable male people freely.

Also note the increasing focus on faith from the political lobby: they have spied it as a barrier protecting females and thwarting male total freedom, and are gunning for it.

There is not one of the eight other protected characteristics respected or valued - as indeed anyone born female is not respected and valued. Unless of course they are wholly centred on furthering the freedoms and nurturing of male wishes.

if a patient asks for something you cannot provide you have to cancel the procedure because otherwise their consent is invalid.

I’m still catching up but had to comment now to say that is not correct. Consenting for a procedure/intervention is about explicit consent to that procedure. It’s not about the hospital saying they can only provide X or Y and if the patient doesn’t agree they can’t have the procedure. It is a dialogue in which the patient and doctor discuss the intervention planned, the possible complications and ideally the rate at which those complications happen. They will also discuss and ask for specific consent for potential serious complications during the procedure in which the surgeon may need to make a decision about what to do during the procedure. It is therefore common for consent forms to say x procedure and in the event of y complication z procedure may need to be undertaken. The patient should have time for questions and hopefully at the end will sign the consent form to say they want to go ahead.

At no point is there a discussion about the circumstances outside the procedure and immediate after care (such as needing to be catheterised, post op analgesia, ITU care).

It's really weird that people are getting hung up on what constitutes a reasonable request, when it's the unreasonableness and discriminatory motive for cancelling that's the problem.

This.
This is the point. It’s not about what she asked for. It’s not about whether what she asked for is reasonable.

The CEO of the hospital explicitly states, in writing, that they are cancelling the procedure because they do not share her beliefs.

That’s it.

The question is not ‘Is this request so unreasonable as to be an appropriate reason to cancel a procedure?’
But ‘Can a hospital (in this case a private business) discriminate against someone for holding a protected belief?’
If we change that belief from Gender Critical to Christian it is stark staringly obvious how wrong they are: ‘ Can we refuse to treat this person because they’re Christian?’ No

I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand here. It’s not what she asked for, it’s the reason why they cancelled the procedure- which they admitted!!

/Rant over.

@nilsmousehammer sorry to be dumb but I haven't seen any of these faith based sex exceptions being attacked. Can you point me to where I should be looking?

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Despite all of the repeated claims in this thread that it can and does?

Oh dear. Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument.

I’m pretty confident that I would get female only intimate care if I said that as a Muslim woman I wanted that. That’s been my reality for the last 40 years both in the NHS and private sector. Certainly I wouldn’t receive guarantees that everyone I came across was only female. But based on what’s happened to this woman if she’d asked for female only intimate care she may well have been refused BECAUSE HER REASON FOR ASKING WAS THAT SHE IS GENDER CRITICAL. That’s the part you are missing. @landOFconfusion

Oh dear. Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument

how on earth are you managing to misread that link

honestly…if we play lets pretend again, do you believe that IF that article said what you seem to to think it said that potholes would have linked to it 😳

landOFconfusion

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Despite all of the repeated claims in this thread that it can and does?

That is what you got from that thread?

That is splitting hairs.

How about ‘it (still) can but (no longer) does?

That would be a more honest parsing of that thread.

Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument.

Seems like projection to me.

I think a lot of women are already feeling terrified of having to go into hospital or a care situation because of the potential lack of female-only care. It's bad enough being so vulnerable and having to depend on female carers. But the thought that a male could be giving intimate care to you against your will is violating and traumatising.

We can't fuck this one up. This needs to be the court case that nails the hospital to the wall and costs them millions, so everyone knows this can't happen again. I'm ready with my spade.

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Just a reminder. We are also told we don’t need a specific law to protect women’s and girl’s rights for female caring staff.

Because we are told we already have the right to decline any health care professional’s services on any grounds.

This case shows the cracks in this rhetoric when applied. It doesn’t work. With the huge numbers, and rising, of women and girls with trauma resulting from male violence, rape and sex abuse and the move to gas light women and girls that males are females, this needs to be properly sorted and fast.

The sunlight is shining directly through the cracks, showing that to be another empty mantra.

Well it's appeared a number of times on FWR threads from those supporting TQ+ politics, look for threads where the subject will lead to females trying to argue for inclusive and accessible provisions. Lily Madigan was the name of the women's officer who went on the record on social media that religion and faith should be abandoned; plenty of screenshots on record of their work and statements during their time in post.

But mostly read the articles and the statements that come out from people like Stonewall and the big influential names with your eye in for why 'faith' is a word slipping in more and more. It's an identified target in that it's been noted as something a female may be able to get protected in court to be able to hold boundaries and have needs met that some male people would really like to be able to control and prevent.

We are also told we don’t need a specific law to protect women’s and girl’s rights for female caring staff.

Because we are told we already have the right to decline any health care professional’s services on any grounds.

Just like women have come to the thread to tell other women this isn't really a problem because the issue was the practicalities and not the staringly obvious in writing declaration of prejudice and exclusion on grounds of belief.

It's the mix of ignorance, naivety, misinformation and downright gaslighting that has been so successful to the agenda bent on destroying women's rights so far. It has leveraged and made very good use of women's values of trying not to judge, to be open minded, to be reasonable, to be kind, to see the whole picture - all positive values. Which are seen as nothing but weakness in the way that a con artist delights in seeing someone innocent. We don't have a lot of time left to wake up.

How ironic that the world religions most seen as oppressive and restrictive to women are now the best hope for respect.

That is the argument that will be leveraged to destroy those women's access. Right there.

That the religions are oppressive, restrictive, patriarchal.

Therefore they should not be supported or permitted to affect women.

Therefore women who choose to stick to those religions....

should be made to let male people have full and unhindered access to them or lose the service.

Please see also:

reframe your trauma for females with PTSD and who are survivors of assault and abuse specifically related to removing their boundaries from male people

and 'learn to cope' and 'get over your genital prejudices' for females who wish to be left to be homosexual in peace and have boundaries from male people.

We are terribly terribly good at oh so very sweetly and reasonably linguistically mugging the rights of females. We can make it sound so reasonable, so right, so modern, so lovely. You'd hardly think it was destroying other people's rights at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. Did you even read it? Let's take some sentences from paragraph 5:

Her female relative had female only nursing after her surgery but she wanted a written guarantee for herself.

Right there, that's someone receiving female-only care. They can provide female-only care! Their former clientele aren't leaving because PGH employs male employees- they're leaving because they no longer trust PGH to be honest which employees are male!

This, with bells on.

I don't particularly like any of the major religions, because they are all used to oppress women, so I am an unpleasant, judgemental atheist. However, the answer to "what do we do about religion x oppressing women?" has never been to push its female adherents out of public life and to claim it's for their own good.

That is what we are seeing right now, and it is disgusting.

Yes indeed.
And I'm far from religious but the irony just slaps one in the face.
Hasn't it come to something when instead of our taken for granted rights, we now have to use patriarchal religions to get back what has always been ours.
Yes I know it was only ever ours while it suited men, and now it no longer suits men we lose it.

We really should be angry, blisteringly angry that men can take away any damn thing from us. Why are more women not realising? Why have so many of us been shouting into the void since year dot? Yeah yeah I know trained from the womb to be kiiiiiind.

The only media coverage is usually from deranged, unhinged conservatives banging on about transgender people in bathrooms.

Personally, left me completely cold - never listen to hateful right-wingers + don't really interact with trans people in real life or anyone in the toilets anyway really + didn't want to be a TERF (clearly akin to racist, bigot, homophobe, etc)

Lia Thomas did it for me! So obviously unfair, misogynistic and ridiculous. From there, I went to Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock and started to see a pattern. And bathrooms are just the start of the slippery slope - we need to address this as a society if a more tolerant society means more trans people in conflict with gender/sex separate spaces.

A more tolerant society would mean providing additional resources for TQ+ people.

There is nothing tolerant about removing female people's spaces, access, equality, rights and language in order to sacrifice it ceremonially on the altar of TQ+ political demands.

That isn't tolerance at all.

Telling women that they must bend over backwards to prevent offense or distress to a male person - which in reality means not saying no to them or expecting them to respect your boundaries - while expecting them to abandon their faith, culture, beliefs, reality, language, privacy, dignity - it's not like the male person they are supposed to be mummying plans to do anything in reciprocation is it?

People of Sherwood, you've been had .

Not ranting at you Zelda I am so bloody angry now.

Safeguarding nightmares, women denied urgent and serious surgery and for what?

So male people never encounter the word no.

Yes to all of these comments! It is hugely telling that religion/religious belief which men share with women has become women’s only safe ground! I say this as a religious woman- if only women believed, it would not be a protected characteristic. That is why believing in our biological reality is not perceived as a protected characteristic (even if it is legally). I think Andrea Dworkin wrote words to the effect that every generation of women has to remind men of the need for safeguarding that arises out of male physical dominance and the epidemic of violence that ensues.

Some of us have been pointing out for YEARS that allowing males into previously all-female environments (swimming pool sessions, toilets, changing rooms, etc) would prevent women of certain faiths from being able to fully participate in society.

We asked how the opposing side (those gleefully trampling on women's rights) would deal with that. I found it was the quickest way to get rid of whoever was arguing for male inclusion, because they had no answer. So I asked the question often, for that reason & because I care that all people should be able to participate in society. I was genuinely asking the other side to consider this question & come up with changes to their rigid, 'trans-trumps-all' stance.

Over the years, the other side have NOT come up with any way of allowing women of faith to be full members of society. These days they have an answer: it is that women should leave their religions, or just that those religions are wrong. I haven't seen one of them show the slightest concern about these women. This is an appalling stance & to me it's inhuman, faced as we now are with solid evidence that what we warned of has taken place: that some women self-exclude because of male intrusion in their previously all-female spaces.

Of course, this self-exclusion also happens for other women & for various reasons, but it's starkest for women of faith & I feel that by fighting for them we have the most irrefutable argument & at the same time we're showing them support & solidarity.