WellBN Brighton GP practice do not believe in evidence based medicine. TT at employment tribunal tomorrow

[impossibletoday]

In case anyone is interested

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2107877530602443058

Much as I disapprove of what the NHS is doing here, does anyone think it's slightly odd to argue that a belief in evidence-based medicine is a protected belief? I think it's pushing it a bit. Surely everyone who works in medicine ought to believe in evidence-based medicine as a matter of course?

Well quite. It seems like a prerequisite really.

On another note, I see they have a 'Lived Experience Advisor '. 🤨

Surely everyone who works in medicine ought to believe in evidence-based medicine as a matter of course?

Just as you would expect that everyone who works in medicine ought to believe that sex is binary & immutable as a matter of course?

As I've said, in Scotland the whole transgender policy for the NHS was written on a "only a trans person knows what that trans person needs and the doctors will do what the trans person tells them to do" basis.

Of course they ought to. Firing (or constructively dismissing) a medic for believing in EBM is akin to firing a Catholic priest for believing in transsubstantiation.

Nevertheless, it seems they sometimes do exactly that - so those who know their job need protection.

It's daft that it needs to be framed as 'belief', just as 'knowing there are 2 sexes, and they're not identical' has been. But that's where we are with the law.

Gender ideology can only operate in an environment where facts don't exist and the only reality is feelings. Ergo if you feel like a woman you are a woman.

In that context, EBM is just an opinion and no better than any other opinion. It follows that there's no issue with ignoring guidelines or prescribing life changing medication without seeing patients. The only thing that matters is the patients' feelings. In this ideology, the idea that the patients might be too young to understand doesn't even figure.

Dr Redvers was operating in the world of facts, NHS guidelines, strict safeguarding principles, the law and EBM. They are incompatible with gender ideology so she needed to be suppressed at any cost.

So from that point of view I can see that she was discriminated against on the basis of her mindset / belief. It's just that most people would call her belief reality.

I am trying to organise my thoughts here, I am sure a knowledgeable mumsnetter will come along soon and articulate this much better than me!

First part of afternoon session

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2108540240528851180.html

That interview with Sam Hall is disturbing. She sounds so sinister and extreme, but she keeps trying to smile and look approachable and reasonable - just like Webberley. It really is a cult-like mentality.

When she talks about the model of 'informed consent' I get the strong feeling that what she actually means is she just wants to transition anyone who comes anywhere near her.

I have just had a log-in email and can now observe.

There’s been a lot of discussion about this on the SP threads and I think it’s the legal complication. As has been said, the existence of two sexes, a round earth, gravity and so on are not really beliefs, they’re sort of, just, how the world works and have been accepted as such for centuries. EBM is newer but started after the horrors of thalidomide and has been moulded into the accepted basis of western medicine in its current form since David Sackett did all his work.

in NW’s write-up of SP, the bit that really struck me from Naomi’s closing remarks was about Sandie finding out about gender critical beliefs “the hard way”, when she finds a man standing in her changing room and it became apparent that society’s rules had changed without anyone telling her. I’ll see if I can find the quote but just have to do the school run now. It really gets to the crux of this emperor’s new clothes situation though.

ETA - got distracted! The thing about protected beliefs is because you need a legal basis to bring the claim and “dur, everyone knows this is how things are” isn’t enough, apparently. So to the Equality Act we go

Here’s the quote from Gender Blog

”Peggie, said Cunningham, “grew up knowing men are men and women are women, and women need privacy whilst undressing. Then she finds herself in a situation where… her ordinary belief has suddenly been redefined behind her back whilst no one was paying attention, and now she’s a bigot for expressing those views. Sandie Peggie learned the hard way what being gender critical meant.””

I've got a log in from the court with apologies for the delay - lots of people applying apparently!

I think that's a pretty good explanation. I just think it's a shame we've gone down this road. When Maya's lawyer argued that Maya was discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs, I could see that pragmatically it made sense, although at the same time it was nuts that a perfectly unexceptional acceptance of biological reality should have the status of a "belief".

The same applies to a belief in evidence-based medicine. I think what makes me uncomfortable is that this surely isn't how the people who framed the belief clause of the Equality Act originally intended it to be used. They intended it to include religion, but also sincerely and deeply held worldviews such as veganism or humanism. It's a real stretch to include "evidence-based medicine" under that rubric, though I can see why they're doing it.

"Transition on demand" ties in very much with "depathologisation" - that's the idea that it's perfectly healthy and normal to want to have your body remodelled to be as much as possible like whatever gender you identify as. Even when "as much as possible" is "not very" and even when the remodelling is destructive, it's still never to be considered a sign of pathology.

With depathologisation the medical problem is no longer that you have an unrealistic notion about what your body should be; nor is it a problem that you are now desperate to do your body a whole lot of damage. Both of those have been "depathologised" and the medical responsibility is no longer to help you reconcile with your body or to avoid doing it damage. Instead the medical responsibility is to change your body with hormones and surgery to fit your notions regardless of (a) how mad your notions are and (b) how much physical damage you are having done to yourself in the process. And (c) regardless of how little you really understand about either your gender or the damaging effects, because you're still a child.

That's it for today, here's afternoon part 2 of TT

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2108558236194361817.html

R's barrister has finished with the claimant, judge has some questions and will start with those on Monday, then C's barrister will ReX.

Thank you @ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe .

This stuff is awful, absolutely awful.

Now I have access to watch, and we are finished for the day, I can say that Dr Redvers is coming across very well. Calm and professional.

In the same vein, once you 'depathologise' something do patients ever get told 'no'?

Why would you take a gender questioning child to get advice from a source that you know only confirms gender identity?

Do we know of a gender transition case where Dr Hall has ever advised against transition?

Why would you seek advice from a source that is clearly biased? It's not advice it just confirmation

Please note, all who have applied to view the tribunal

In my email the clerk has not used bcc and all the email addresses of people who have applied are visible. This is not the first time a clerk has done this.

I have complained and urge anyone else affected to do so.