Not sure this has already been posted but I thought it worth sharing if not. Given the content of Upton's testimony yesterday & the fact he wouldn't automatically exclude himself from providing care to a woman or girl who specifically asked for a female doctor, this is a good letter that covers the implications of that position:
https://x.com/allanpetrie91/status/1889591533013242177?s=46
"In response to NHS Taysides Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child). i have sent this letter.
Subject: Grave Concerns Regarding Policy and Legal Compliance (Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child)
Dear Ms Connor
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the information contained within NHS Tayside Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child).
This policy appears to be an ill-thought out, politically motivated initiative that lacks respect and dignity for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is shocking and unacceptable that such a policy would be proposed, given the clear breaches of legal protections that it entails.
Breach of Legal Protections
The policy in question purports to align with existing legal frameworks, but a careful examination reveals that it in fact contradicts and undermines fundamental legal rights. Specifically, it appears to breach the following:
1.The Equality Act 2010:
This legislation provides distinct protections based on Sex and Gender Reassignment as separate protected characteristics. Policies that fail to differentiate between the two may result in unlawful discrimination against individuals whose rights are specifically protected under this law.
2.The Human Rights Act 1998:
This Act guarantees the right to privacy, dignity, and non-discrimination. The implementation of policies that disregard biological sex in favour of gender identity alone could infringe on the rights of women, particularly in healthcare settings where sex-based protections are vital.
3.The NHS Constitution:
The guiding principles of the National Health Service require patient centred care that respects the specific needs of individuals. A failure to recognise and accommodate the unique medical and biological needs of individuals based on sex undermines these commitments.
4.Offences Against the Person Act 1861
It is essential to remember that medical professionals, like all individuals, are bound by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. While they are legally permitted to carry out procedures that would otherwise constitute assault, such as physical examinations, injections, and surgeries, this is only lawful with the informed consent of the patient.
Without such consent, any physical intervention, regardless of intent, constitutes assault under the law. This includes a woman’s explicit refusal to be examined by a biological male doctor, requesting a same sex doctor is a valid and lawful exercise of bodily autonomy. Any attempt to proceed without consent, or to pressure a patient into accepting an unwanted examiner, is a breach of legal and ethical standards and may constitute criminal assault under this Act.
Sex v Gender: A Crucial Distinction.
It is particularly alarming that a health service policy does not differentiate between Sex and Gender, given that both are distinct and have different legal and medical implications.
Sex is a biological classification (male or female) based on reproductive anatomy and genetics. It is immutable and has direct implications for medical care, such as differences in disease risk, drug metabolism, and specific healthcare needs.
Gender is a social and psychological identity that may or may not align with an individual’s biological sex. While gender identity could be a consideration for personal and social recognition, it does not replace or override the biological realities that must be considered in healthcare.
Differential Legal Rights
The legal framework recognises and protects sex and gender separately.
Sex-Based Protections: Women have the right to single sex spaces in certain contexts (e.g., hospital wards, prisons, and changing facilities) under the Equality Act 2010.
Gender-Based Protections: The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be legally recognised as their acquired gender, but this does not erase sex-based rights or override biological considerations in all circumstances.
By failing to uphold these legal distinctions, the policy in question risks violating the rights of vulnerable groups, particularly women and those with specific medical needs based on biological sex.
I urge you to reconsider the implementation of this policy considering its legal and ethical shortcomings. Policies within the health service must be based on clear, lawful, and evidence-based considerations that respect the dignity, privacy, and rights of all individuals, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.
I would appreciate a response outlining how these concerns will be addressed and what steps will be taken to ensure that legal obligations are met. I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Yours sincerely,
Allan Petrie
Chairperson
Glenlaw House parent/carer support group"
I don't have a link to the policy he's challenging, but will have a look for that later if I have time (working today).