Doctors told not to impose their beliefs

[lcakethereforeIam]

The article mentions Sandy Peggie and Jennifer Melle. It's a new consultation by the GMC

https://archive.ph/wKKyk

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/19/doctors-told-not-to-impose-views-beliefs-patients/

I'm genuinely confused. At first I thought it would be a good thing, Dr Upton and NHS Fife shouldn't have imposed his belief on Sandie Peggie. Then I thought perhaps it's Sandie Peggie who shouldn't have imposed her belief? Or is it both of them? Which conjured a picture of them in the changing room furious rotating around each other like a falling cat with a piece of buttered toast strapped to its belly.

It says doctors and anaesthetists, so I do not read it as applying to nurses. Probably due to whom that organisation represents. I think what they are saying is that the priority must be absolute neutrality, with the option of stepping back from involvement with someone whose view you disagree with, and referring them to a doctor who does not have an objection.

Seems reasonable to me. Though I hope that eventually promoting gender-affirming treatment (I will not call it ‘care’) will not be considered any more than lobotomy would be, regardless of philosophy.

That article is very confusing and I have a nasty suspicion that they are using sandies and Jennifer's cases as a cover for more dangerous bs.
Id very much like to see these new guidelines before I comment further, do you know where I can find them?

Good idea. I've found a link but I've only been able to glance at it

Personal beliefs and medical practice - GMC https://share.google/YMh7Hx5lgpdRQ6zve

There's a consultation to fill in. I'm not sure who it's open to. Also links to the current and the draft guidance, that I currently don't have time to look at.

It says they want to hear from patients as well as doctors and all allied health professionals so pretty much everyone as far as I can see

scanning through they do seem to have got the message about not bullying or discriminating against ppl with different beliefs

IMO it's a very good as long as there is a shift away from "gender critical beliefs" being protected. What is far more helpful here is the legal protection that Forstater won to not believe in gender identity.

If it's positioned as one belief (that everyone has a gender identity) against another belief ("gender critical belief") then neutrality involves giving equal weighting to both. Likewise if Christianity comes into it.

Melle shouldn't have needed her Christian belief, or even "gender critical belief", as a defence/reason for using "he" pronouns. Her lack of belief in gender identity is enough. Exercising that lack of belief when talking about someone is neutral. She even said that she'd avoid pronouns and instead use the patient's preferred name when conversing directly.

Here's the other (more important, IMO) part of the Forstater win:

https://x.com/i/status/1749777661855940901

It is nothing to do with a belief! It is just reality.

I prefer the idea that not believing is just as valid as believing, there are so many 'belief systems' trying to accommodating all of them would be impossible. Better to accept that not believing means a person is not obliged to accommodate any of them. I don't believe in a god, it's better that people who do accept that, just like I accept that people believe in a god. I don't expect anyone to not believe, no one should expect me to believe, everyone wins that way.

I’m going to derail. Anaesthetists are doctors. The protected title for people practising medicine in the Uk is registered medical practitioner.

physicians associates and anaesthesia associates are not medically qualified (they have a two year masters level qualification).

I don’t see what this changes. We (I’m a doctor)have long been told not to impose our views on patients (and colleagues).

Hopefully it changes people like Dr Upton being able to project "I'm a biological female" vibes onto the women in the changing room.

It also means that if the Dr Uptons of this world ignore it, and do project such beliefs, the women in the changing room can call this out by saying "we don't share your belief that you're a woman".

Likewise patients who want to receive same-sex care.

🤞🤞

You'd think this would have already been covered by the Nolan Principles amongst other things but several court cases suggest not.

Thank you. What an important point.

So, don't bring your wholeself to work? I can get behind that.

Thank you, though I worry that what they mean is that GC women should not express their beliefs while GI men should be pandered attended to at all times.

I completely agree with you. However, I'm concerned by the reality that Genderism has been assimilated wholeheartedly by the NHS and other public sector institutions as though it were an objective fact rather than a wholly subjective ideology. This consultation may be operating from a premise that the Genderist lens is an established assessment tool for medical treatment and therefore doesn't come under the topic of this consultation i.e. 'staff beliefs'.

Yeees, that’s how it might get interpreted. That genderism is the default and that realists should shut up and put up.

If they do eventually they're going to smack into reality because nobody outside the public institutions thinks that GI is the default setting, if they start dealing with the people as if it is, there's going to be a massive disconnect. The NHS in particular are going to be inundated with complaints, maybe that'll bring them back to reality.

Maybe they need a clause about doctors being compelled to practice using factual, evidence based medicine rather than political / delusional beliefs?
That would knock the sex change fantasists / queer theory obsessives on the head

Thanks for highlighting this. I don't believe in gender identity ideology. That doesn't mean I am a gender as someone transactivists try and impose on me. I know sex is binary and cannot be changed. Using belief has got us in tricky spots but I think as other posters say it should be enough to say I don't believe in gender identity ideology and not have to say because I'm gender critical.

Agreed. The key thing about (other) beliefs is that patients can refuse treatment because it conflicts with their belief. No patient should be able to demand an intervention (and no doctor should be able to recommend an intervention) that is based on a belief. The default path for recommendation of medical intervention should be based on biological facts.

To those who think this is a good thing - it's not. The GMRC have refused to consider any action against Upton. They are captured. What they want is to impose their support for gender identity on you. Note carefully the "doctors dont have to put up with abuse" that has been used to cover misgendering.

Doctors who commit sexual assault, doctors who remove body parts without agreement - not generally struck off. Admittedly the MPTS is worse than the GMRC, who do sometimes take the worst decisions to court.

Black doctors are often treated more harshly than white doctors.

This is a misogynist organisation that needs to be told firmly that compelled speech is not acceptable and that pride flags and lanyards should not be in hospitals.

This is an organisation that has not struck off doctors for prescribing puberty blockers when there was no good evidence for them. Read the guidance - it will be used to justify referring confused children to places they can buy puberty blockers.

This is the trouble with all laws, policies and initiatives like this. Once you can frame those who understand sex and the law as "phobic", once you frame adults trying to safeguard children as "bigots"or "pearl clutchers" etc then the predators pushing the "sex change is great for everyone, especially the young" have free access to bully and silence all opposition.
They're then free to target children and the vulnerable with no opposition.

The consultation is open to everyone. I intend to tell them what I think of doctors forcing their fantasies on me and practising medicine that is not science based. I shall also be encouraging DH, who agrees but will express it less strongly, to comment.

The revised / proposed standards are focused on patient care and how physicians should not impose their personal beliefs and views on patients.

I can see why the Mele case is relevant as it was about interaction between Jennifer and a patient. I don’t think the Peggy case is relevant to these standards because the focus was on interaction between 2 employees. I think professional bodies and organisations are limited/ guided by employment law in this context.

These standards also don’t cover the issue of approaching research and diagnostic/ treatment protocols through the lens of a belief system - which is the issue at hand with the gender clinics and care. The scientific method used in medicine is meant to address this, and so I can’t see there ever being standards written about this specifically. This should be covered through clinical governance standards. I am not convinced they need changing, I think the NHS and related profession bodies need to follow them. It’s a scandal all of it own that they don’t in this one specific area of medicine. I see this as being a scandal that is additional but related to the scandal of gender affirming care.