Hello Peeps
This is what I am sending to Wes Streeting this morning. Maybe consider sending something similar?
[email protected]
--------
Dear Minister for Health & Social Care
I have been watching the Employment Tribunal called by Sandie Peggie in Scotland.
(Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024
Sandie Peggie has brought this action against NHS Fife and Dr B Upton as joint respondents. She alleges harassment or sexual harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing.
Having heard about the case, and being interested in women's rights, I took the opportunity to observe the hearing, particularly the first 2 days of evidence by Dr Upton. I had tuned in expecting to hear that both employees were vulnerable and that the NHS had failed to balance their competing needs. However under oath the doctor expressed some shocking - and at times - chilling views which were entirely lacking in empathy and appeared to disregard the human rights of those who didn't share their beliefs.
The case hinges on whether simple words like man or woman can be labelled hate speech - in my opinion having listened to both make their cases, is unacceptable for one party to control the language of another and limit their ability to express their needs.
There are therefore two concerns I would like to raise:
-
The serious problems with gender self ID in relation to obtaining informed consent to treatment. The doctor made it clear that the onus was on the patient to object to a specific practitioner - even if they (or their family) had already expressed a preference for a female healthcare professional. The doctor also stated that anyone refusing treatment would be considered transphobic. This leaves a patient with no personal freedom or dignity and leaves everyone vulnerable. This is (or should be) against all safeguarding principles. It is far too reminiscent of the old "she didn't say no" defence. The current situation is completely unacceptable. I would like to know how the DfH will ensure that women have the right to closing this loophole immediately - potentially putting temporary measures in place while evidence is gathered and analysed.
-
The doctor is named as joint respondent in the Employment Tribunal. This means they are jointly and severally liable for any financial awards if the claims are found against them. The evidence heard so far, unforced and under oath from the doctor, is shocking. I imagine NHS Fife were not aware of the doctor's extremist personal views before they agreed to joint counsel. Therefore should any claims be found against the respondents, a financial award may be made. I would like your assurance, that if Dr Upton is eventually found liable for a financial costs, that no public money will be used to cover the doctor's share.
I look forward to hearing from you