NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #26

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 February 2025 and was expected to last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It is planned that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access. However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently caused by a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was doubtful whether pubilc access for remote viewing would be reinstated but recent developments (as of mid May) suggest that this might actually become available again.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse
Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2
Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3
Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4
Thread 5: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5
Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18
Thread 19: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274571-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-19
Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5275782-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-20
Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21
Thread 22: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5280174-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-22
Thread 23: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5285690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-23
Thread 24: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5301295-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-24
Thread 25: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5318518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-25

Not only do you appear to have something personal against him when he has expressed his professional opinion calmly, but you appear to be misunderstanding what he said. When there is no directly applicable case law, it is hard to predict exactly what a court might judge in a case where a patient and staff are trying to claim they are correct based on different, and possibly conflicting, rights.

Ignoring the fact that the whole discussion is academic, an individual doctor refusing to treat you for whatever reason does not mean the NHS is refusing to treat you.

Didn’t take long for the fan club to appear. I don’t know this poster personally but of course I disagree with someone who thinks I am wrong to think a patient’s right not to be discriminated against as a woman can be trumped by a doctor's right not to be discriminated against due to his or her religion.

Requiring a doctor, whose belief prohibits them from treating a protected group, to treat that group could be indirect discrimination on the groups of belief. However, indirect discrimination is permitted as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Ensuring ethical and equal access to treatment by patients would be a legitimate aim. Ensuring the doctor is registered with the GMC who a clear that doctors are not allowed to discriminate, would be another.

Belief vs treatment went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ability to conscientiously object to carry out abortions was tightly draw to the act of abortion itself and they could not object to supervising staff carrying out abortions due to their belief.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30514054

‘We are not refusing to treat you, you just have to wait longer or travel further to access treatment, and as he is the only person trained in the most up to date procedure because we only had funds to send one person for training, you can only have the older treatment. Of course, you might feel humiliated or degraded, we know you find it offensive that our employee refuses to treat you due to your sex but really, honest, the NHS isn’t discriminating against you on the grounds of sex or harassing you….”

I have said you don't know what the courts would decide if such a conflict of rights were to occur, not that you are wrong.

The case to which you refer was not belief vs treatment. It was belief vs having to supervise and support others involved in treatment.

Yes, indirect discrimination may be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Being able to treat all patients is clearly a legitimate aim. Whether forcing doctors or nurses to act contrary to their protected beliefs is a proportionate, appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim is not clear. That is what the courts would need to decide. It is possible the decision would be fact specific but, as this will never arise as there are no religions where medical staff are barred from treating people of the opposite sex, it is unlikely we will ever find out.

If we look at something which could arise, whilst a male Muslim doctor cannot refuse to treat women, Muslim beliefs are that he should only treat Muslim women if there is no female doctor available. If he acted on that belief and refused to treat a Muslim woman when there was a female doctor available and was disciplined or sacked for his actions, what would the courts decide? I don't know and nor do you.

*Being able to treat all patients is clearly a legitimate aim. Whether forcing doctors or nurses to act contrary to their protected beliefs is a proportionate, appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim is not clear.(

The GMC thinks it is.

Waiting for another of your fan club….

Can I just say, as politely as I possibly can, that I think you’re being a bit unfair here.

We’re all trying to understand the ins and outs of this tribunal. @prh47bridge has been very generous with their time to help explain technical details over the course of 26 threads, and many of us who know less about the intricacies of the law have appreciated that.

Something else that we have appreciated is that in general on these threads we all bring different opinions, views and areas of expertise to the table. Please, do share yours - we are trying to get at the big (and detailed) picture here and everything helps. But also please, don’t denigrate the gratitude that some of us feel for other people also sharing their thoughts.

It's lovely, isn't it, that whole skit on the properly-brought-up Victorian child.

The Drawling-master was an old conger-eel, that used to come once a week: he taught us Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils.'

Let's drop the pointless 'fan club' digs. This poster has been calmly and articulately posting on MN in a variety of threads over many years and has helped loads of people. If you disagree with what they say then disagree with it, rather than making jibes.

It's been really interesting to see the breadth of opinion and experience on things like this and most people are genuinely trying to make sense of what they know to be true and how that might inform future issues.

Not sure about the fanclub part - but what has been discussed up thread is the big grey area between what is law, what is policy and what actually happens. And it is all very context specific. So there are times when discrimination can happen lawfully - the single sex exemption is a case in point. Sometimes it is OK/lawful to exclude someone from a service and sometimes not. In the NHS audit policies we have often seen that Trusts say they have a zero tolerance to discrimination - but that is usually based on women not 100% affirming trans member or staff or fellow patient but there is no comment about what happens if a trans member of staff discriminates against a patient. I haven't followed all the things you have posted in detail but without a really specific example I'm not sure anyone can answer your questions in the detail you seem to want.

I’ve found @prh47bridge ’s posts useful and informative on this and other threads, as I have found those of many well-informed and thoughtful posters.

The “fan club” gibes are juvenile.

not sure how that supports the thread - a rather childish comment

cor, you're all so much more grown up than me. I was just going to say something mean and sarcastic

Maybe we will need to ask @KnottyAuty 's amazing policy review team to look into NHS policies around "aggressive abuse" and how they are managed.

"Aggresive abuse" is mostly supposed to relate to physical aggression and (I think) it can mean a patient is refused care altogether. So after what has already been said in court, it would be reassuring to know that a clinician (or other health worker) could not label a patient as an "aggressive abuser" only for no accepting that a biologically male doctor was a woman. No matter how personally offended the clinican feels by the patient giving that as a reason for not wanting care from them.

My interpretation of the policies is that they would class that not as the patient not wanting a male doctor, but as transphobia. Transphobia is indeed classed as abuse (though I don’t recall the term aggressive abuse) in many policies.

The humans carrying out the policies, on the other hand, I cannot speak for.

I think the salient point @Dwimmer is making was that a patient does not have a duty to discriminate against a member of the care staff that is providing a service, so as we know we can require female only services where appropriate.

That would not extend to requiring only a white person, or a none Muslim for example.

The problem we have is, that NHS services seem to classify any woman refusing to be treated by a person of the opposite biological sex who happens to be a TIM, as in the same category as a racist.

As the Audit thread on NHS policies reveal.

Which they cannot do since the SC ruling.

thing is with @prh47bridge he just states his legal view, which in this instance amounts to a moot or academic point.

but i think Dwemer is correct with the whole duty thing.

I do wish people could avoid spats on here, or nasty comments like his fan club.

it is not helpful.

There’s no symmetry as between patient and doctor.

A patient can lawfully refuse treatment from any doctor at all, for any reason, “discriminatory” or otherwise. If I don’t want to be treated by (say) a Jewish doctor that’s my right. (Of course the hospital isn’t obliged to provide an alternative that I approve of, but that’s a different matter). If refuse treatment from a Jewish doctor I haven’t discriminated against the doctor. It’s not his or her right to treat me.

A doctor might be able to refuse to give a particular treatment because the treatment goes against their beliefs. But not because a protected characteristic of the patient is against their beliefs.

I don’t mind people engaging with my points. The fan club comment, I admit rather childish, was in response to posters who rather than engaging simply stated how grateful they were that another @prh47bridge posted.

@prh47bridge you haven’t engaged with my point about the GMC rules. Why is that?

Absolutely you can refuse care from a non-white person, or from a Muslim. All day long. Even if that health care provider is ever so offended and upset. In this country we don’t force medical treatment on anyone for any reason all. But nobody has a duty to provide you an acceptable alternative.

Because they are not necessarily decisive as far as the courts are concerned and I've been commenting from that point of view. I agree that a doctor may get struck off for refusing to treat a patient due to the doctor's religious beliefs if a complaint is made, but that doesn't necessarily mean the courts would uphold the decision if it was challenged. See, for example, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, struck off by the GMC in the wake of his evidence in the Sally Clark case but reinstated by the courts.

In this situation, Upton isn't refusing to treat anyone. He is wanting everyone to follow his delusion, with access to female spaces and for all female patients to accept him as female.
At what point does delusion have priority over the truth?

Speaking as a member of Knotty's Ermine Viper Research Group - when NHS policies are written and handed over to HR/EDI.

It is thoroughly depressing.

So looking forward to seeing it all minced thanks to the SC.

The GMC is now captured. The chance that they would strike off a trans doctor for anything short of having sex in the hospital instead of treating patients or misappropriating NHS funds is a joke. At best there would be a brief suspension and some constraints on their future practise.

The NHS has encouraged staff to see gender critical views as similar to racial abuse. Hence the mess NHS FIFE are in.

And the new head of the BMA apparently believes that men can become women.

So fat chance of a doctor wanting single sex privacy when needing to change scrubs mid shift getting support from their Union.