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'.

That's Victoria's second belter this week. The point about activists reflecting their shame back at the victims of their beliefs is a particularly acute one.

She really is one of the best writers on women's rights issues:

The argument against trans women in sex-segregated spaces is not based on their transness, but their maleness. People pretend that’s not true, however. In keeping with the “do nothing” preferences of the bystander, many people would rather impute bigotry and bad faith to rape victims than deviate from the “trans women are women” thought-terminating cliché in which they have become invested.

Yes. It's been going for years in society, the thought-terminating cliche that "Transwomen ARE women".

The simple truth is that TRANSWOMEN ARE MEN has a lot of catching up to do. So many people think transwomen are women who want to be men. And that "transmen" should be the name for men who want to be women.

But when you point up people like Karen White, male trans claimant, man put in a female prison, went on to commit sexual assaults. Surprise surprise!! Yeah, no.

This is just an update on this case.

https://mol.im/a/12398959

There is existing provision for requesting a same sex HCP so any examples of I was offered or I objected to are not relevant.

It is only a problem when the person objecting/requesting makes it clear that they require trans HCP to be classed as their sex not their gender identity.

Apparently having the temerity to state that you believe that someone’s gender identity does not make them the opposite sex results in being cancelled. In HEALTHCARE. Maybe the new strap line should be trans people are literally killing gender critical people.

That operation seems to have been quite a major, lifesaving procedure.

I am not a doctor, but could cancelling it at such short notice actually have proven fatal? And doctors, at a hospital, would surely be able to see that?

So they were actually prepared to let her die? With a really clear paper trail showing precisely why they made that decision?

Did they think that if she had died, they would not have been held to account, or that whichever body held them to account would not have found them responsible? There would have been no repercussions?

So either they had no idea that she might actually DIE = grossly incompetent.

Or they actually thought she deserved to die = terrifying.

It made my blood boil to read the description of the outlandish, designed to attract attention, red lipstick and deliberate eye contact.
It might not strike a chord with people who don’t understand but we most definitely DO. Clear as day and for one purpose only.

Like a dog pissing on a lampost.

Or they actually thought she deserved to die = terrifying.

Thinking of that horrible “lesbian nana” from West Yorkshire Police… the repulsive smug look on her face as she stood there with her arms folded watching four grown men dragging a terrified disabled teenage girl around.

It’s worth remembering her expression. I imagine someone very like her made this decision. I think they actually do think other women deserve to die for thinking wrong thoughts. (Or of course it could have been a male TRA; but murderous misogyny in male TRAs is not even surprising enough to discuss.)

I wonder what the board and shareholders think of the decision to waste all the time and resources that had been allocated to the op for a political principle? And the resulting disastrous PR?

They're an American business though so maybe they don't care.

I wonder what the board and shareholders think of the decision to waste all the time and resources that had been allocated to the op for a political principle? And the resulting disastrous PR?
These were my thoughts, too. The hospital are a business with a duty of care to patients and a mandate to make money for the shareholders. Their decisions are baffling on both fronts. I would like to hear the doctors' thoughts, too.

I remember when this happened, the shock and uproar, and the concern for this very ill person in a vulnerable position. I am glad she is better and grateful that she is speaking up. I wasn't aware of her professional background. It seems the hospital picked on the wrong person.

AFAIK, that hospital has a lot of wealthy patients from the Middle East, surely they cannot be happy with enforced opposite sex care.

I guess the issue is whether single sex care encompasses transwomen nurses. Personally, if I was the nurse, I'd not want to cause any of my patients discomfort or embarrassment. I side with the patient but I can see it also puts the hospital in a difficult position as an employer too.

I've been a patient of the PG for a couple of years and recently stayed for five nights for a second surgery. I'm sure it has patients from the ME but they're not the majority. The nursing care was excellent from both the female and male nurses.

But I can understand why the patient was aggrieved to have her surgery cancelled in her particular circumstances.

@grass321

I'm not sure I see the conflict for the hospital as an employer. They are not revealing any information about a staff member if they comply with a patient request for single-sex care.

Presumably the issue is that the employee would say they're a female nurse and can provide nursing care in that situation. In that situation, I guess they're slightly stuck between a rock and a hard place legally.

No, there’s a single sex exemption and this would come under it.

@Coyoacan Please see this post made at the time.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Thanks.

So the PGH is neither capable of understanding the most basic of medical ethics nor does it seem to be looking after its shareholders' interests.

IME it's sufficiently popular that I doubt it's affecting the shareholders.

Private patients tend to focus on the consultants, rather than the hospital, and the HCA London hospitals have some outstanding consultants in their fields. That drives the demand for the hospital and nursing care.

Which shows what could happen once the recent conflation of " identifies as a woman" and being female are conflated. Sex matters.

Which shows what could happen once the recent conflation of " identifies as a woman" and being female are conflated. Sex matters.

Indeed. At that point, it becomes legally difficult as both an employer and provider of care.

I'm not saying it's right but I guess the employer has the risk of their employee suing them for discrimination, or whatever the legal recourse would be. Hence they chose to avoid the situation by cancelling the surgery.

Shows they are more scared of the fallout from ‘defying’ one of the sexes huh?

From the article:

Which is a huge deal in a hospital,’ she points out. ‘Two leading surgeons, and their teams, were stood down. It was done at such a late stage that another team — of robotic experts, in a different location — turned up, only to be turned away.
‘A high-dependency ward space, robotic suite and open-surgery suite were left lying empty. I dread to think of the costs involved.’

I have wondered if the surgeons were given any opportunity to have a say in this. I suppose not but the surgeons I know would have been furious in a situation like this. And most are very concerned for their patients, that's why they do the job, I would expect that they would have been appalled.

I don't think Teresa has mentioned any interaction with her surgeons about the situation, presumably if they offered sympathy/outrage it needed to be off the record and their identities and practice protected. Which is fair enough obviously. Though I think most private surgeons also work in the NHS and any surgeon working in the NHS is used to being overused by some jumped up manager with no medical knowledge and having operations cancelled at the last minute for various reasons so maybe they just shrugged their shoulders and set about trying to make new arrangements for her (or more likely telling their secretaries to do so).

*overruled by some jumped up manager not overused!
Though they probably are too!

The woman who wrote the letter - hospital liaison? Is she still in the job?

Thanks purgatory for that reminder. I wonder though if the PGH ever did research into why they lost that segment of patients?