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'.

Nope landOFconfusion - nobody (except for you trying to extricate yourself out of the grubby hole you've dug for yourself) is discussing scientology. Nor do we have a list of acceptable women.
Andrea Dworkin might be helpful for you to deepen your understanding of what women centred feminism is about?:

Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore. It doesn't matter who the individual women are. They all have the same vulnerability to rape, to battery, as children to incest.

This is amazing. Well worth procrastinating on lawn mowing for. "I was, I was, I was thinking of scientology"!

Anyway, legal extract.

Effect

733.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.

734.Single sex services are permitted where:

only people of that sex require it;

there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;

if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;

they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);

they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or

they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/8#top

Are we going to be told why female adherents of scientology can be rescued from the cult by being forced to accept male nurses washing their vulvas? Is this an approved strategy to help people exit cults?

This thread is about the need for females to have female only care teams. A need that is common through some religions.

You have seemingly brought in something else completely. Yet we can still work where it is relevant.

Do you believe that a woman who has been forced to undergo an abortion by her religion deserves the respect if she states she needs a female only care team?

Are her needs to be respected or not?

There is always this danger, isn't there? When people are asked to clarify and extrapolate the meaning of their 'just a fact', 'just a few words'.

What happens if the complete lack of substantial thought behind that 'fact' just plopped onto a thread meant to shame those posters who disagree with the 'fact' plopper.

So, landOfconfusion, do you care to engage or is this another slew of derisory posts which end up showing your own ignorance and intolerance?

Hahahhaha ! 🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for that laugh, confused one.

Of course you weren't being racist. It's just that you hate Tom Cruise.

The bar for not being WORIADS is a lot higher than believing in peculiar texts and following some associated weird rules written by a long dead science fiction author.

Scientology is a protected belief under EQ10 (eg you can’t legally refuse medical care to a Scientologist).

You don’t have to personally agree with a religious belief as part of not discriminating against others with that belief.
That would result in one entirely dominant religion rather than our current multiples.
History has taught us that one single belief system is both undesirable and impossible to sustain anyway (even murdering the non-believers only works for a little while)

Currently the only belief system that demands that everyone else in the UK must also believe in it (or convincingly pretend to believe in it) is Genderism.

my little ladybrain

Wow. another enlightening snip of a comment.

Who here has even hinted at such a thing? It does fit though with the instruction to 'touch grass' though to people, mostly females, discussing a case of where another female has had her life saving operation cancelled because of her request for female carers where it was reasonable and possible.

Ladybrain? Touch grass? From a person telling us how to feminist properly?

All too familiar with those type of posters.

Why shouldn't a man be able to refuse a female doctor? You should be able to refuse any medical professional and not have to give a reason, and asking for one of the same sex is perfectly reasonable, whether a woman has a lump on her breast or a man has one on his testicles.

Yup

Indeed, DdraigGoch. The Equality Act is quite clear that men are also entitled to single sex care.

By the way, when a friend of mine went to a men's clinic about a bump on his testicles, bringing his partner with him for moral support in the waiting room, he was warned that the staff would check with all other attendees whether her female presence in the waiting room caused them distress.

Friend and partner accepted this, not being arseholes.

I agree. It should go both ways for intimate care (and the EQ10 does actually allow for this).

Both men and women are able to request same sex HCPs and if it’s not possible, the management need to explain why and either find an agreeable compromise or find a suitable onward referral.

Obvs in an emergency situation there is no opportunity for the patient to make the request, let alone hash out a compromise.

However, some requests can be fairly easily anticipated, and that’s why we collect data, including the 10
yearly census.
The majority of women are going to prefer female only breast radiology clinics.
The majority of man are going to prefer male testicle cancer treatment teams.
This preference is going to be particularly notable in areas that have significantly sized communities with orthodox/conservative religious beliefs or communities who have a recent heritage in countries where religious teachings have influenced the country’s legal system (even if the belief/faith is not personally held by the individual).

Of course, the majority of nurses/HCA/carers being female makes it harder to accommodate a male request for a same sex carer, but that doesn’t make his right to request any less legal (just harder to fulfil).

Thoughtful deployment of staff and using the legal provisions for sex equality exemption when hiring for certain roles will maximise the opportunity to fulfil patient requests but no patient should ever be shamed, ridiculed or rejected for making a same sex HCP request, even if that request cannot be met due to practical considerations.

Fact are dangerous things. Aren’t they?

They can make people feel uncomfortable and rather foolish when the fact
conflicts with their opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to warn us about facts.

Do you believe that a woman who has been forced to undergo an abortion by her religion deserves the respect if she states she needs a female only care team?

I’m very tired today so may be missing it, but what fact have you posted @landOFconfusion ?

This right here. 👏🏼

Hilarious. That is all you have?

No. Facts are not dangerous things.

But I have yet to see you post a relevant fact here. Hence why the word is contained in ' '.

Perhaps in your need to try to shame posters instead of engaging in discussion you missed those ' '.

So, please. Post the relevant fact again so we can all see it and appreciate its splendour.

Your posts are just continuing to show that you seem to posting from ignorance and intolerance. Do crack on.

Why shouldn't a man be able to refuse a female doctor? You should be able to refuse any medical professional and not have to give a reason, and asking for one of the same sex is perfectly reasonable, whether a woman has a lump on her breast or a man has one on his testicles.

Of course anyone can refuse care from anyone but they can't be guaranteed a preferred replacement.

The fact is, tho, that male people are not female and should not be pandered to when pretending they are .

At the very least, I'd want medical staff who are honest about which sex they are.

Ah. Scientology.

A belief system it’s notoriously easy to leave.

anyway, what does our Lady Scientologist do if she won’t leave and she needs intimate care? I don’t agree with her beliefs, Heck, I don’t agree with most religious beliefs, as I’m basically about The Church of the Sub Genius- what do these women, whose views you don’t respect or like do?

Like the religious belief that the male who goes by the name "Sharon" has some kind of inner womanly essence that means that they should be fine to provide intimate care on a female patient despite that patient having requested care from female staff only.

By the way, just because you post on a feminist board, doesn't make you a feminist.

Fact.

If you call your statement a 'fact', it doesn't become a 'fact', a relevant 'fact' or even a relevant 'statement of opinion' for the topic you are posting on.

Fact.

I suspect no 'lady brain' involved in creation of whatever it is you believe was a relevant fact.

HTH. Go touch grass or whatever it was that you said.

No. Facts are not dangerous things.

tbf in some parts of the world which no doubt include the land of confusion, facts are literal violence. Facts are killing people left, right and centre, by some accounts. No wonder certain posters steer well clear of them, like sheep avoiding an electric fence.

I see we're still not engaging with the actual debate, just playing Poke The Females. While supporting male supremacism.

You do you, mate.

I notice that the word 'sophism' though has been picked up and parroted back by the Twitterati

What new word shall we teach them this week while we make the bets on how long it takes to be parroted back?

I'm putting forward 'supercilious'. I don't think we've modelled that one yet.

The argument from certain posters has now just become baffling. The bizarre train of thought seems to be running like this -

Women should not be allowed to request single sex intimate care.

If the woman who is making the request is doing so because of her religious beliefs, the request shouldn't be considered because 'religion bad'.

If you are religious, you are not a feminist.

Scientology.

Interspersed with deeply cringy phrases like 'go outside and touch some grass'.

I'm not having it anymore. This case has tipped me over the edge. What a load of absolute bollocks TRAs like @landOFconfusion spout. It's nasty, racist, misogynist bollocks. I bet your mum is so ashamed of you.