Telegraph: Patients may be guilty of discrimination if they refuse care of transgender medic, NHS bosses told

[ResisterRex]

A report by the NHS confederation is in today's Telegraph. A good example of how a hierarchy of EDI seems to have been cultivated, with disabled people right at the bottom. Anyone who's had a parent or grandparent with dementia will be upset to read that parts of the NHS want to be able to refuse to provide care to their loved one because their comfort comes last.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/nhs-patients-discrimination-transgender-staff/

"Patients may be found guilty of discrimination if they refuse the care of a transgender medicc_, according to new NHS guidance.
Health bosses have been warned that patients have no right to be told a healthcare worker’s assigned sex at birth.
However, transgender health workers can choose not to treat patients if they feel uncomfortable doing so, the report by NHS Confederation says.
The report, published earlier this month in partnership with the LGBT Foundation, says patients can only request care from a same-sex staff memberr_ in limited circumstances, such as if they are having an intimate examination.
It states that when a patient requests an employee administering care to be a woman or a man, “the comfort of the staff member should be prioritised”.
Patients with dementia ‘should be challenged’

The report goes on to say that “the patient has no right to be told that the person treating them is trans or non-binary,” adding: “It would likely be discriminatory for the patient to refuse to be treated or cared for by a trans person, unless clear and evidenced clinical harm may result to the patient.”
Patients with dementia “should still be challenged” if they express discriminatory views about transgender staff, the 97-page guide states, while their relatives “may be removed from the premises” if they do the same.
But a non-binary medic can refuse to treat a patient, with the advice stating they “should not be forced to deliver care if this would cause undue distress or invalidate their lived experience of gender”.
It comes as the NHS published its first equality, diversion and inclusion (EDI) plan, which outlines that organisations are to include “diversity training on gender reassignment and sexual orientation” within mandatory training for healthcare workers."

You can't have a system where you refuse treatment because of someone's appearance , sexuality , race etc.

Staff are professionals employed to do a job and should be able to do that without question or bias

Or course you are welcome to go privately and choose your medic.

Let's hope a prominent human rights lawyer publishes something saying how illegal this is, then if trusts follow it they're clearly breaking the law and patients can sue.

Seems to me that the D o H needs to give a clear direction that this guidance is unlawful and not to be followed.

Yes, quite right staff should not be able to deny care to a patient - this document says they can refuse to do their job which is wrong.

A patient can demand accommodations based on their protected characteristics, however, and can refuse consent to be treated by anyone for any reason.

Read the legal feminist thread. Patients are not subject to the EA. The NHS - and private healthcare providers -are. No difference between NHS and private providers here

Patients are not paid, they are not professionals. This document treats them on a par with people being paid by the taxpayer to do a job.

Even a child could see the inequality and that they should not be treated the same. The patients are in the vulnerable position of needing healthcare, they are the 'customers'. The HCPs are paid to provide this care. Refusing to do your job is not an option. The people who wrote this need to be fired and find alternative employment if they can't understand something so basic.

It is disgusting. And unlawful.

Patients have an absolute right to refuse care by any HCP for any reason (other than in really unusual circumstances e.g. some people being cared for under the Mental Health Act).

It is an established principle in law that being misled about a person's sex and, in some circumstances, even non-disclosure, invalidate consent to intimate contact - see R v. Gayle Newland 2015 and others (this is a good summary of cases, despite being written from a TRA perspective).

This is pretty mind boggling:

Patients may be found guilty of discrimination if they refuse the care of a transgender medic, according to new NHS guidance.

How will they be found guilty? Will the Police be summoned to a patient's bed and charge them? Then summon them to court?

You can for intimate care - that's perfectly reasonable.

Indeed. It is perfectly lawful for an individual, acting in an individual capacity, to discriminate against anyone, as long as it doesn't tip over into abuse/harassment etc. If I want to be a racist twat and refuse to use a shop owned by someone Asian, or whatever, it is perfectly lawful to do so. It's mad to suggest otherwise.

A legally illiterate set of guidelines has spawned even more misleading and confusing press reporting. Dept of health needs to step in and clarify the position for the sake of patients and staff.
this state of affairs whereby NGOs run by assorted idiots and wankers create confusion without let or hindrance has to stop

Bringing your fetish to work is already bad enough, but forcing other people to participate in it under threat of punishment is appalling.

I volunteer as tribute.

I have multi systematic issues so not limited to receiving care in one discipline. I am the type of women they will kill with this.

This is the end result of intersectionality and queer theory in a so called secular public service.

When you pay to go privately you choose your medic so you choose who you prefer to treat you

Patients may be found guilty of discrimination if they refuse the care of a transgender medic, according to new NHS guidance.

Load of bollocks, patients aren't providing a service to HCPs.

Are they seriously suggesting a woman should be charged for refusing to let a man examine her vagina, for example? They think it's a patients 'duty' under the EA to let anyone have access to their body?

The guidance is encouraging the coercion (threats of 'being found guilty of discrimination') and sexual assault of patients.

There is no legal right to insist on a female HCP - this would be impractical as a hospital or GP surgery won't always have people of both sexes in all roles.

However there is an absolute right to refuse care from any HCP for any reason, or giving no reason at all. It would be assault to give physical care to a patient with capacity without consent.

It could be a good opportunity to get the legalities out there, scrutinised, and clarified.

because other women know her trans status and have made belittling comments in the past.

It's always about the hurty feelz.

My mum had advanced dementia. She was also a retired nurse as well as having had several children of her own.

She would have been incredibly distressed to have been given personal care by a male HCP and told they were female.

It's literal gaslighting of incredibly vulnerable sick people who do not have the capacity (often physically, mentally and legally) to be able to refuse.

The NHS should hang its head in shame. "Challenging" dementia patients about biological reality? Fucking hell.

Untrue, in fact. Most referrals under UK health plans are now « open » ie you are referred to a specialism, not a named specialist. Further, even where you can choose a consultant, other HCPs may be involved in your care whom you do not choose.
the relevant law (the law of assault and the EA 2010) applies in precisely the same way in the private sector.
dont spread disinformation

That would be great, if it happens, but unfortunately the influence of the Confed guidance is likely to be more insidious. It will have a chilling effect on every HCP and patient wishing to stand up for the right to know an HCP's sex and for patient autonomy in choice of HCP. Which is, of course, the intention.

At best, the Confed are the TRAs' Useful Idiots, at worst, they are knowingly advancing the TRA agenda. Given how captured the NHS is in general, I would suspect the latter.

Oh. Fuck.

Daily mail are playing a blinder at the moment... Not sparing Oxfam either. Keep up the good work Daily Mail (is never something I thought I'd utter on Mumsnet!)

I would like to know who wrote this. I will Google “NHS Confederation” of course but I am wondering about the individuals and process behind it.

Did they outsource to some kind of trans lobby group? How did they come out with this psychotic pile of bollocks?

Can they be FOI’d on the process?

Would it be too much to ask that who is treating me has a basic knowledge of biology, male & female anatomy & the science behind how M & F bodies work ?
I'm presuming they would as they would have studied it in college. I will live in hope.