Your values
ripX4nutmeg at Glinner update reports on a hospital nightmare:
In one of the most shocking stories yet, a London hospital has cancelled a woman’s life-saving operation at the last minute because it doesn’t ‘share her values’. That ‘value’ she had was that she wanted the aftercare nurses to be female.
Former solicitor Teresa needs urgent, rare and highly complex, colorectal surgery. She selected the private Princess Grace Hospital, which specialises in women’s healthcare, for it specifically because she didn’t want to be in a mixed-sex facility.
A victim of sexual assaults, Teresa made it clear to the hospital how important this issue was to her, by both requesting a single-sex room and bathroom, and stating she would only answer questions on forms about her sex, not her ‘gender identity’.
During a pre-operation intimate procedure, a male member of staff, wearing a blonde wig and bright lipstick, opened the door uninvited, and peered in. He made eye contact with her, before leaving. Teresa wondered if she was being targeted due to her requests.
She wrote them a letter/email expanding on her concerns, which is included in the post at Glinnerland.
She then had to go home for three days to prepare for the operation, in which pre-op medication was to be couriered to her. Nothing arrived. She called the hospital and was told the operation had been cancelled, with no explanation given why.
She then found an email had been sent to her by the CEO of the hospital saying the operation, which was due the next working day, had been cancelled due to a ‘lack of shared values’ and to ‘protect staff from unacceptable distress’
It does actually say that. It’s quite breathtaking. “We do not share your beliefs and are not able to adhere to your requests and we have therefore decided we will not proceed with your surgery.” Bam, just like that. “We don’t like your beliefs therefore we won’t do your surgery so fuck you.”
There’s a lot more. It’s all breathtaking.
H/t Sackbut
One of the most important principles physicians abide by is the one where they agree to render care to their patient whether they personally like them or not. Once it’s okay to violate this, doctors can no longer be trusted.
I’m horrified.
Yes, yes this is a harmful Doctrine. A deadly one.
I want a hospital that places patients first.
Just their way of saying “Die, TERF”.
This is so awful, I can’t…I can’t even imagine. The doctor who did my nasal surgery was a Republican; we didn’t share values, other than the value of breathing. A doctor i went to disapproved of abortion; he didn’t refuse to treat me because I had one.
Does that mean I can refuse to teach any students that are white supremacists, Christian nationalists, or anti-choice? I don’t think so!
That is a remarkable breach of medical ethics.
So remarkable I think it will blow up in their faces. Hope so.
TRA 1: “The whole ‘Mermaids’ scandal is really peaking a lot of people.”
Princess Grace Hospital CEO: “Hold my beer.”
So, this patient issued a list of demands of the hospital, including that the hospital agree with her definition of “females” (which might put the hospital in violation of the law), declared that these demands are “a condition of [her] contract with HCA,” and noted in her signature that she is a (retired) solicitor, which is clearly a veiled threat. (I have never, and would never, sign personal correspondence that way, nor do I use “Esquire” or any such other “watch your step, I’M A LAWYER” nonsense.)
I don’t blame the hospital one bit. This patient is spoiling for a fight and was going to sue them no matter what they did. Better to refuse the operation and let her try to sue over that than to perform the surgery and get an inevitable lawsuit when the “wrong” staff member enters her room.
I just don’t see how this is different from a Muslim or Orthodox Jew demanding that they only be treated by men. You can ask for that, but don’t be surprised when the answer is no.
I look forward to her losing her inevitable lawsuit.
This CEO should be sacked. He has his priorities backwards. The hospital staff are there for the benefit of the patients, not the other way around. If he’s cancelling surgeries because women are requesting care from female staff, and only female staff, then he is putting lives at risk. How’s that for “unacceptable stress?” Staff shouldn’t have a vote in this. The beliefs of patients should have no bearing on the quality of care they recieve. If it is otherwise then somebody needs to be disciplined or fired. If the staff in question cannot or will not see that their presence as males will trigger this woman’s tauma, and refuse to comply with her legitimate and reasonable request, they have no business working in healthcare services. All the wigs and lipstick they can buy doesn’t stop them from being men, and if they can’t swallow their narcissism and step back, then they should be fired. Nobody gives a good goddamn about your precious “gender identity,” so they should leave it the fuck at home. The people they are there to serve are not an audience, not props, and have more important things to be concerned about than keeping someone’s pronouns straight.
Screechy @ 7 – really???
I’ll agree that her initial letter had too much lecturing in it, which is why I didn’t quote from it extensively (and maybe I should have copped to that), but wanting female nurses should get her sued? Really???
Here’s how it’s different from Muslim or Orthodox men demanding treatment only by men: men are the privileged class and the stronger class and the very unlikely to be sexually molested class. Men aren’t vulnerable in the way women are. Women sometimes get raped in hospitals while under sedation. Women have genuine reasons to avoid having men poking at them when they’re helpless. Men, not so much.
It could be that the hospital doesn’t have enough women to do as she requested, and one of the emails did say that. But the CEO explicitly said it was also because we don’t like your beliefs.
Then again, after another look – I’d forgotten that the lecturing came after her pre-op assessment, and that she’d said the lecturey stuff in response to a questionnaire – so presumably the hospital asked her about her obedience to pronoun rules or some such shit and she was explaining why the answer was no. Do you think she should have answered the questionnaire saying yes I will use the mandated pronouns like an obedient patient?
Also the lecturing came after the guy opened the door and stared her in the eyes. Do you think she had no right to be angry? My experience of such situations is that if you’re in an exposed position people don’t come bouncing in to get a look.
This is definitely one of the worst stories I’ve heard on this issue, the CEO seems to have handled this in a pretty horrifying way. Given that this hospital specialises in the care of women, you would think on some level it would need to know what a woman is and how their health needs might differ from men’s. The only thing I’m wondering is could the hospital have simply said that they couldn’t guarantee an all women care team? If they offer all female care teams as part of the service then they’d need a pretty good reason why one can’t be supplied, but I understand that sometimes that’s just the way it is.
I may be wrong but it seems that whilst the UK has rules in place that allow organisations to treat transwomen as men in certain circumstances, they aren’t requirements, they’re options. So any org that wants to go all in on TWAW is completely allowed to do so, females be damned. Unless we’re talking about hereditary titles that is…
One of the replies to her said that they couldn’t do it, but that was after the CEO had already said we don’t like your beliefs so we won’t do your surgery. At most it was both and: both we can’t and we wouldn’t if we could because you’re evil.
Aside from all that …
Is she going to be able to get the necessary surgery?
Lawsuits are not important if you’re not alive.
WTF how did that post while I was typing? Anyway…
#7 screechy The hospital was not being asked to subscribe to some zany definition of female, it was being reminded that female does not mean trans woman, it refers to biological sex.
“This patient is spoiling for a fight and was going to sue them no matter what they did.”
Women’s hospital CEO: “She says she only wants women staff to attend to her intimate care and not transwomen who it is legal to say aren’t really ‘cis’ women. There is literally NO pleasing some people. There is NOTHING we can do to satisfy this woman.”
Please note: “A victim of sexual assaults, Teresa made it clear to the hospital how important this issue was to her, by both requesting a single-sex room and bathroom, and stating she would only answer questions on forms about her sex, not her ‘gender identity’.”
“and noted in her signature that she is a (retired) solicitor, which is clearly a veiled threat. (I have never, and would never, sign personal correspondence that way, nor do I use ‘Esquire’ or any such other ‘watch your step, I’M A LAWYER’ nonsense.)”
Perhaps you missed her saying she’s a victim of sexual assaultS. Perhaps you’ve missed all the stories about social workers, university teachers, lawyers, women just trying to live their lives getting fired, disciplined, driven to quit their jobs, visited by the police for daring to ask what this woman asked?
How you could write that screed is beyond me.
Yes, correct please. Not trying to channel Gollum or Yoda.
Not having enough female staff would have been a reasonable response; informing the patient of this in a timely fashion would have been fine. The “lack of shared values” is just a bit of gratuitous putting the boot in, as well as saying the quiet bit out loud. Her “values” should have no impact on her treatment. Are they thinking “She’s a TERF, she’s the enemy, she got what she derved?” Then they should think again. Even in time of war, under the Geneva Convention, medical staff are expected to treat enemy soldiers in their care. If they’re not even prepared to meet that required standard of care, the staff in question shouldn’t be in medicine, nor should the CEO be in hospital administration.
She said she was willing to have male staff if she was informed upfront and agreed. She wasn’t planning to be unreasonable. She also “assumed” she’d have private room and bath. The response said it was turning her down in part because they couldn’t provide that, yet she hadn’t demanded it as a necessary precondition.
As the patient pointed out, she should have been able to consider all the objections and reply to them BEFORE they cancelled this surgery at virtually the last minute.
Basically, she was being punished for complaining about a TIM (or male cross-dresser) barging in for no particular reason. If she hadn’t written that letter, they would probably have done the surgery. And yet she’s clearly in the right on this.
I read her letter to the hospital again. It doesn’t come across to me as belligerent or threatening but shocked and somewhat despairing. She’s reporting the fact that a guy in heavy drag makeup opened the door for no reason, and why she feels so much discomfort about it: she doesn’t want guys bouncing in to film her and post it to social media. She’s explaining, not threatening or shouting. The CEO’s reply is appallingly rude and dismissive and abrupt.
I can’t see Screechy’s version at all. It’s just not there.
Ok, lots to respond to, let me try to sort it out.
OB@9: I’m not saying that the hospital should sue her. I’m saying that she has been plotting to sue them and now probably will. As to the relative risks of men vs women, what are you saying here? That every patient has a right to demand treatment by women only? Or only women patients can? Or only ones who are survivors of prior sexual assaults?
@10: I don’t think it’s a given that she was “asked about her obedience to pronoun rules.” Her own email is rather vague on that point. She says that she wrote on a questionnaire that she “would not agree to use pronouns or otherwise engage in such manifestations of gender ideology.” She doesn’t indicate what the questionnaire actually asked her. Yes, it’s possible that the questionnaire asked “will you agree to call our staff by their preferred pronouns?” I’ve never been asked to do that, and my hospital is very “progressive” about such things, but the UK is very different on these issues, so who knows. But it’s also possible that the questionnaire just asked about her preferred pronouns, and she went off on her soapbox.
But yes, in general, if she doesn’t want to follow the hospital’s rules, then she shouldn’t expect treatment there. I was at a doctor’s office earlier this week, and if I had started crossing out parts of their form that I didn’t feel like agreeing to, they would have sent me on my way.
As to what happened with this mysterious man in a wig, well, I’m skeptical. Note that we’re only getting one side of the story here: as the Daily Mail article notes, the hospital can’t fully respond for reasons of patient privacy. Teresa (or Emma as she’s called in the DM) is pseudonymously making allegations against the hospital while they’re handcuffed by privacy laws.
Holms @14: you can keep declaring what your definition of a female is all you want, that’s not binding on the hospital.
Me@15: your entire post is a non sequitur followed by a how dare you, so I’ll simply say that I shall endeavor to live with your disapproval.
Sastra @17: I doubt the hospital is under any obligation to negotiate the exact terms under which she would like to be treated. And her letter is clearly setting the hospital up for claims of breach of contract, battery, and fraud if they don’t end up meeting her “expectations.”
Note also that the CEO’s subsequent email stated that the medical team had conferred with the patient’s consultant and confirmed that there was no medical risk from cancelling the surgery and that she would be able to obtain treatment elsewhere, but still offered to speak with her and see if something could be worked out. The patient’s response contains more huffy snotty assertions about how as a lawyer she knows what “harassment” is and
This is a litigious shit-stirrer, and any hospital would do well to avoid treating her if they are not legally obligated to do so.
As I understand the law (I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training) it doesn’t deny what we all know to be true (including the men themselves), that men who say that they are women are men. All it says is that, under certain circumstances, for those with a GRC (but not those without) they can claim that they have been victims of discrimination if they are treated differently than they would have been had they not been in the process of ‘gender reassignment’. A man cannot be sacked for going through the process if he has a GRC. Those circumstances do not allow a man with a GRC to complain about discrimination in employment under circumstances where women and children are vulnerable; the women are entitled to female-only care, and providing it is not discrimination against the man with a GRC because no men have the right to be employed in such circumstances. All the act allowed was for a legal fiction to be put in place so that, under certain conditions, it would not be discrimination to treat a man who has acquired a GRC as if he were a woman.
Stonewall has been busy lying to everyone they can that the situation is completely different; that all a man has to do is say “I’m a woman” and after that, he must be treated as a woman in all circumstances, and that even members of the public are guilty of discrimination if we don’t go along with the fiction. And they’ve been backing up the lies with threats of dire consequences for non-compliance with the lies.
They’ve been sneakily capturing the minds of people in positions of power (like the hospital CEO) so that they could push the boundaries to the place where they could tell parliament that self-ID laws might as well be rubber-stamped because that’s already the situation in the wilder world. They really don’t like the fact that women are pushing back.
All this to say that the woman is perfectly reasonable in her request for female-only carers, in a women’s hospital; that even if the freak in the fright wig has acquired a GRC, he’s not being discriminated against if he’s excluded from the care team; and that the CEO is bang out of order for discriminating against her for her protected beliefs in reality.
Her emails could be seen as challenging for sure. By quoting legislation, regulations, Codes of Practice, and judgements to the CEO. Not actually threats to sue as such are they? Someone feeling challenged may interpret them as such, but surely only if they breach said instruments, in which case they get what they deserve.
NZ law is pretty similar to the UK in its structure. We have laws and codes that define patient rights and health providers responsibilities. Because the health system is stressed here as everywhere, patients and their families are encouraged by regulators to hold the health system to account, because it doesn’t do a good job of that itself. Here we have a patient expressing their understanding of their rights very clearly, and using their status as a retired solicitor to underline that they know what the hell they are talking about. I should add that in NZ suing for personal injury is almost impossible.
In NZ the CEO’s actions would be a clear breach of patients rights, and the hospitals obligations. They should have actually spoken to the patient, promptly, to reach an understanding that complied with the law and relevant mandatory codes (minimum required standard after all), was safe and achievable for both the hospital, the patient and its staff.
Screechy Monkey #19
Then they should at the very least be honest enough to come straight out and say what their definition is as well as consistent enough to state openly and clearly that anyone who fails to think/feel/”present” etc. in the ways required to meet their definition does not qualify for treatment at a hospital “which specializes in women’s healthcare” if that is indeed what they’re claiming to be.
As I keep saying it’s both blatantly inconsistent and dishonest to redefine words like “man” and “woman”, “male” and “female” while continuing to act as if they still applied to the people formerly known by these names. If “Elliot Page” is a “man”, then I’m not. You can’t define that person in without defining me out. After all you have just taken the only thing that ever made me a man out of the definition of “man”. To hell with the “cis” crap. Either “cis men” relate to “trans men” the way “fruit bats” relate to “baseball bats” (i.e. not at all – it’s just a bad pun!), or I’m not a “cis man”. There is no non-trivial definition of “man” that applies to both “Elliot” and me at the same time. If your “men’s room” is for people like “Elliot”, it is not for people like me. Likewise, if your “women’s hospital” is for people like Eddie Izzard, it is not for any biological female who fails to qualify as a “woman” in the same sense as Eddie Izzard, and you should come straight out and say so.
* Certainly not while insisting on a non-trivial difference between “men” and “women”, as you pretty much have to do if “misgendering” is supposed to be such a big deal.