Princess Grace hospital cancelled vital surgery for woman who requested single-sex care

VioletSky

Erm...

If women want to cover their hair or refuse treatment from someone that is their choice.

Would it be a choice they made without growing up in a strict family? Possibly not.

When any religious or cultural practise puts a woman at risk of harm I'm not OK with it.

Honor based abuse is a serious issue and I'm not changing my definition of abuse to be inclusive to religion.

Religion needs to change to empower and protect women's rights too or its just a rather flimsy excuse to abuse women.

I'm sorry if I am being dim, but what has any of this got to do with the discussion?

The women in the media has not said that her choice was based on religion, AFAIK. She doesn't have to explain the reason for her choice to you, or to anyone. She made the choice, and it was accepted by the hospital and, presumably, factored into the fees she was charged. The question of whether religion is responsible for abuse of women is maybe for another thread?

Well at least the majority of posters think the incident should be investigated.

I’m still waiting for a reason for the No thanks from violetsky.

You’d think we’d have learnt by now that sweeping things Nader the carpet and the refusal to investigate leads to continued abuse.

Fleurpepper

Who are you to decide? Biology is just one of many determinants. And that is the whole point.

I forgot about another trans friend. Who taught Art at the High School here. Married for many years, 2 daughters. Divorced in her mid 50s, and had full reversal during the Summer School holidays.

The School Head and Trustees wrote to all parents, explaining that Mr. xyz would return at hte beginning og the school year and would have changed appearance and would, from then on, be called Mrs xyz. They expected an uproar from some parents, and bullying and discipline issues for the kids- but it all went very well, and her decision was fully respected. Wonderful.

Do you think parents should have had the right to request that she did not teach their children, lest it would have somehow rubbed onto them with the paint?

Actually I do think it’s the same mindset of it doesn’t matter if you don’t know, sorry but I do.

Your example is very different because everyone was entirely open about it.

Patients always feel vulnerable. They are vulnerable. Confidence in your medical team, that they will not go against your wishes is vital.

I can't see how it has anything to do with the discussion either Doodle.

It's good that the majority posting here think this needs to be investigated Lathyrus. As you say, sweeping things under the carpet enables abuse to continue.

That is a wonderful example Fleur but the difference is it was out in the open. There was no intention to deceive.

doodledog

I wasn't the one who brought religious practices into the discussion

But I think it matters and is relevant

Feel free to ignore

Lathyrus

I'm not getting into personal arguments thank you

No it was me, replying to Lizziedrips comment that she wouldn’t give a “flying fig”. She asked the question does it really matter and I pointed out to that some people, yes, it does really matter.

Then we went off into Iran and stuff. It saved having to answer other questions that were a more difficult.😀

Like I said nothing personal.

Just st comments and questions on the things you’ve posted.

I realise some of them are difficult.

Lathyrus

I addressed quite a difficult subject you brought up

Maybe we can discuss some of the relevant points?

Up to you

Smileless2012

That is a wonderful example Fleur but the difference is it was out in the open. There was no intention to deceive.

What is one or some parents, or kids, would have objected and refused to be taught by her?

But you see, for my niece, who changed sex so many years ago, has never had any objections, does her job wonderfully, lives as a Mrs married to a Mr- she would not have wished to 'deceive', at all. She would have just been there, as a member of staff, as she always is, day in, day out.

I agree it is not easy. Ethical questions never are. But they certainly not 'black/white' or simple. And it seems to me, the 'agenda', and the 'issues' was on the patient side. Investigate- but what a waste of time and money! The world has indeed gone mad. We can both agree on this. But I see it the other way round.

Lathyrus

I think Fleur that if I was having an intimate assessment and somebody walked randomly into the room, hung about for a short time and then left without any indication of why they should be there, I’d be asking questions about who they were and why they were there.

It would seem very odd to me.

This woman wasn't having an intimate assessment.

She's never experienced sexual abuse either.

It's a manufactured controversy, orchestrated by somebody with an agenda.

Ok.

Why are you against an investigation into what happened at the hospital?

That’s to violetsky, not growstuff or Fleur.

Doodledog The woman in question wasn't telling the truth - or at least what happened was twisted by others not telling the truth and she went along with it until the interview she did with GBNews.

In regard to a waste of time and money, I’m afraid there are always a number of patient complaints that might be regarded as that, motivated by a number of things.

They all have to be investigated. This one shouldn’t be treated any differently, should it?

And from those who think it should, I’m simply asking why they think that.

Lathyrus

Ok.

Why are you against an investigation into what happened at the hospital?

There's going to be an investigation, but nothing very much did happen, apart from a single incident when somebody entered a room. It's all been stirred up by people with an agenda. One of those people posts on Mumsnet and possibly posts on here, so it wouldn't surprise me, if I'm targeted now.

Lathyrus

Ok.

Why are you against an investigation into what happened at the hospital?

I'm not

Seems a sensible way forward

Yes, and I hope the truth comes out.

We don't know the facts of this case

But we do know the facts! The woman and others have published all the emails, which contradict the story as it became embellished on social media.

Um

Me: I hope the violation of patient dignity and privacy will be thoroughly investigated

Violetsky: No thanks

a private hospital to ensure that she would be treated in a female environment, or at least that the staff treating her would be female. She paid her money on that basis, so a contract was in place, yet her wishes were disrespected.

No, that's not what she requested at the beginning of treatment. She changed her request and the hospital couldn't meet it because it doesn't have single sex ICU.

Lathyrus

Um

Me: I hope the violation of patient dignity and privacy will be thoroughly investigated

Violetsky: No thanks

Her dignity and privacy weren't violated.

growstuff

*We don't know the facts of this case*

But we do know the facts! The woman and others have published all the emails, which contradict the story as it became embellished on social media.

We know some of the facts.

We still don’t know why the member of staff entered the room.

That’s what the management have to investigate no matter how objectionable the patient is.

That’s the complaint procedure.

A transwoman nurse is a nurse. That is all anybody needs to know.

But we don't know that a transwoman is a nurse. The woman thought the nurse looked like a man. She had no contact with the nurse apart from brief eye contact and being in the same room for no longer than a minute or two.