GLP - We’re suing a hospital for trans discrimination

[toyl9876]

https://goodlawproject.org/were-suing-a-hospital-for-trans-discrimination/

“In May 2025, Lisa* was booked in for surgery to have her testes removed due to chronic pain. But a week before the operation was going to take place, the hospital called to say the surgery was cancelled.

The hospital claimed they couldn’t operate because the surgery was classed as gender-affirming care. But surgery for pain has nothing to do with gender-affirming care, and refusing to treat someone just because of their gender identity is discrimination.”

I wonder how much hand wringing went on in writing down that the comparator is another man!

GLP leading the Right Side of History into the breach once more for a case of mild ball ache in what sounds like a wannabe Eunuch.

This is another corker - thank you Jolyon! Fantastic sunlight.

Any claim under the Equality Act must be made within six months so in typically efficient GLP fashion the claim has been submitted out of time & now GLP are trying to argue that the law should be ignored because it doesn't suit their case.

28.The claims in respect of both decisions were brought within 12 months and are therefore within time under the HRA 1998. If the Defendant seeks to rely on a limitation defence in respect of the EqA 2010 claim regarding the decision made on or around May 2025, the Claimant will contend that an extension of time pursuant to section 123(1) of the EqA 2010 is just and equitable given: (i) the Claimant pursued an alternative remedy, namely the complaints procedure; (ii) much of the factual matrix underpinning the May 2025 decision must be 9 considered by the Court in addressing the July 2025 decision; (iii) the EqA 2010 claim raises similar legal arguments to the HRA 1998 claim (which are within time); and (iv) only a modest extension of time is required in any event if the Claimant is incorrect that the alternative remedy extends time.

Oh dear - i didnt clock that - how disingenuous asking for crowdfunding on a case as tenuous as this?!

Is this an attempt to show the EA is out of step with the HRA?

Absolutely ridiculous!you will not have a leg to stand on! It is quite obvious what the surgery is for.once you stop lying to yourselves you will realise.obviously the hospital knows there are many urgent important operations that will come first every single time.like saving someone’s life!

She is not interested in surgical pain management strategies such as cord block

So Lisa says the chronic testicular pain affects his life, but is also not interested in a less invasive procedure to stop the pain. Right then.

He did receive cord blocking treatment and claimed it didn’t work.

I don’t think this is as much of a slam dunk as everyone thinks. The fact that he was seeking treatment for pain cannot be ignored.

The additional information the Bunny linked to is really useful in terms of understanding the context and what is being argued

Can you say more? I’m slow on the uptake here!

I’ve no real idea- was just pinging my spidey senses that there is some greater purpose to this case.

Usually, people are expected to try and resolve issues through complaints processes before taking legal action. If a complaint was lodged with the Trust and took a long time to be heard, this could be a reasonable explanation for a delay - from a layman’s perspective at least.

Perhaps complainants are expected to do both simultaneously?

It just seems a truly bizarre case for them to champion.

If this was being led by Sex Matters, I think there would be a high chance that it formed part of a strategy of judiciously selecting cases that will strengthen the position for sex based rights.

As this is the GLP, based on what has happened to date, this doesn’t seem likely - unless they have woken up. To date, their approach seems to have been driven by one or a combination of the following: despair, rage baiting, income generation, stupidity.

I know he ended up having it, but I think it’s interesting to note he wasn’t interested in having it. If you’re living with pain surely you’d want to explore every option and start with the less invasive options?

Replacing his boxers with more supportive underwear would be the first step.

Yes, I agree.

I can actually see how it could be considered discrimination. I don’t think it requires such a leap to be successful as many of their other cases.

From one perspective - a patient accesses specialist treatment for a chronic pain problem. Some, but not all available treatments are offered. Before all treatments to address pain are exhausted, the patient is discharged to another service to address a related issue but doesn’t specialise in pain. This means the patient is discharged and left untreated for pain.

GLP are saying that if the patient didn’t have the PC of GR, and referral wasn’t made to GIC, the patient wouldn’t have been discharged on the pain issue, which may be true. I have no idea if patients are discharged from the urology team with unresolved pain having been offered a standard range of treatment that excludes orchiectomies.

In the case of a patient who has a strong desire to have their testicles removed, additional/ different hypothesis need to be considered linked to psychosomatic pain. Therefore, direct comparison with typical patients is problematic. I think the comparator needs to be another patient without the PC of GR but a strong desire for an orchiectomy regardless of pain. I guess someone with body dysphoria might work.

Once the wrangling about whether an ‘out of time’ claim is resolved, I think argument about the competitor to use will come in to play.

When it comes to the clinical reasoning part, I think the GLP will lean in to diagnostic overshadowing - which happens when symptoms are dismissed because of another diagnosed condition. However, I think this would hold more sway if the patient hadn’t received pain management treatment.

Discovery might involve the hospital disclosing how many orchiectomies they have completed on the basis of pain only.

If it is discrimination on the basis of that protected identity alone, then it should absolutely be fought and won, and I'm behind it regardless of who is bringing the case.

But as lots of posts here show, it's unlikely to turn out to be that uncomplicated, and I'll expect there's a lot to this that we don't yet know.

I am looking at it from the legal perspective (which I chance limited knowledge of!).

His pain seemed to have been viewed as having physical causation, regardless of the psychological component, as evidenced through the nerve blocking procedure. His acceptance of the treatment (whether reluctant or not) evidences a commitment to pain management regardless of his desire to have his testicles removed. I think these facts will carry weight in a hearing.

Alternatively he agreed to the block with the full intention of saying it didn't work in the hope that it would get him the castration he wanted.

What a ball ache for the hospital.

I agree.

If a patient is experiencing chronic pain, it shouldn’t be dismissed because of another diagnosed condition. Autistic and learning disabled patients often encounter this.

Symptoms can be psychosomatic and psychologically based treatment can be the right approach- but is often felt like dismissal to patients because they know their pain is real. They can struggle to understand that pain from physical and psychological causes can feel the same.

The particulars quote medical notes referring to the complexity of the case. It is complex because there are more variables in play than with patients who don’t want their testicles removed for reasons other than pain. What is key is that all hypotheses be properly explored and none dismissed without proper exploration.

Agree - and pun noted and appreciated 😆

It will be difficult to prove either way. Lisa will argue that he is/was committed to the procedure working as it’s intolerable living with the pain. The hospital will argue that the evidence of how he has responded to treatment points to a psychological not physiological cause of pain, hence the GIC pathway bring the way forward.

It’s not an operation that’s generally offered anymore for pain, just for cancer and for dead testes.

Lisa can’t say it’s discrimination that his operation was cancelled, when that procedure isn’t offered for pain to anyone.

All the hospital have to say is “on reflection, this procedure isn’t in line with best-practice clinical guidelines” and it’ll go nowhere. I can’t see it even going to court.

It’s “complex” in the sense the hospital can’t divulge their full assessment of the case vector breaches confidentiality. So if, as examples, they had strong evidence that Lisa was malingering, or dishonest in his claims about his pain in order to get the procedure, or had a history of mental health issues manifesting as chronic pain, etc etc, they can’t say.

I have lived with chronic pain for 11 years now. Noone ever offered to remove my ribs to fix it. In fact nothings been done really bar giving me painkillers every month