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

I don’t think I have mentioned Islam or any religion by name. I don’t think that it matters why someone doesn’t want to be touched by a man if she doesn’t.

I am not saying that it will always be possible for her to get her wish, but she should be able to make that choice for herself, not have to have her choices validated by others who might see them as abusive based on their own prejudices.

It is no different from someone not wanting to eat meat. There is no obligation outside of anti-discrimination legislation for hosts to provide a vegetarian or vegan alternative, but it is reasonable to expect to be told which dishes contain meat and to know that there is none hidden in a dish on the grounds that the chef doesn’t think it matters.

I would allow anyone qualified to give me medical attention and be glad of it. I also eat meat at times. They are my choices and I respect the rights of others to make theirs.

Urgh I just realised I could have completely addressed the whole thing just by saying that "bringing religion into this subject isn't warranted because you are doing so based on your own misconceptions about it"

Fleurpepper, would you accept "women in islam"

I understand your point but it's actually a quite defined topic on this thread

And there are misconceptions that could delay women getting treatment from the other direction if hospitals or caregivers decide to abide by a misconception waiting for female staff member before actually talking to the patient

Hopefully that's avoided by training

Muslims are instructed, and want (in most cases) to put their religion over and above anything else.

That is their choice, not for anyone else to decide.

Smileless ''If I thought for the sake of clarification it was prudent to say Christian women, Jewish women, Mormon women and/or JW women then yes, I would do so Fleur and don't understand why you find it objectionable.''

Because Christian women, come in so many guises. As said, from Plymouth Brethren to Catholics, extreme evangelists to CofE, and so many in between. With different beliefs, different cultures, different adherence and interpretation to/of Scriptures, and different expectations.

Same for Muslim women- so many different groups, cultures, expectations, etc, etc, etc. So my comment about my relatives being very different to the Muslim women portrayed here, is valid, if talking about Muslim women, is.

Fact is, that body autonomy is not always possible, and certainly not currently in the NHS, with such shortage of doctors, nurses and carers. It should be, and the system should try to accomodate, but as the hospital in the OP clearly said, can't always be guaranteed, for all sorts of reasons. One of the being clear discrimination towards their own top medical staff.

I agree with you Volver. If I was ill or having surgery I wouldn't give a damn what colour, race or sexual persuasion the medical personnel were, so long as they were good at their job.

It's unreasonable to expect hospitals to pander (for want of a better word) to every patients needs. And for the patient to then rant about it on social media is just attention seeking.

Fleurpepper I probably would use the term "Christian women" if I needed to highlight an issue they were facing... yes

Smileless2012

Feminists understand the added difficulties faced by minority groups of women too, that is what being a feminist means. Being aware of and concerned about all issues that affect women.

You don't have to be an intersectional feminist to do so and IMO do a disservice to feminists if you suggest that if they don't label themselves as intersectional, they don't.

I'll take things I haven't said for 100 points please Bob

Smileless2012

It is only permissible VS if a Muslim woman is happy to do so. If she isn't, then for her it is not permissible. Do you understand what I am saying?

Do you actually know anything about Muslim teachings?

If a woman refuses treatment that's her choice, nothing to do with what is permissible.

Would I respect that choice?

Would you if someone you cared for refused treatment from a man or would you try to convince her to save her own life?

If I thought for the sake of clarification it was prudent to say Christian women, Jewish women, Mormon women and/or JW women then yes, I would do so Fleur and don't understand why you find it objectionable.

You're right, Apartheid Medicine being only for whites is not what this thread is about. Muslim women who do not wear 'normal' clothes and in our opinion do not take full part in their community are not necessarily oppressed, having freely made these decisions for themselves.

It is only permissible VS if a Muslim woman is happy to do so. If she isn't, then for her it is not permissible. Do you understand what I am saying?

I do wish people would stop using the expression 'Muslim women'. Would you use the expression 'Christian women' if you were talking about Plymouth Brethren, Mormons or JWs? No you would not.

Some Muslim women are oppressed- and they belong to very specific groups, from very specific regions and cultures.

We have many women in our family, who are Muslims- and they are NOT oppressed, and make their own choices, in many succesful professions and businesses. They wear 'normal' clothes, are not 'cut' and take full part in their community. One is a great GP, and yes, she is very popular, partly because she is amazing, and partly because she is a female in a Muslim area. She was not able to attend Medical School until she was in her 30s, NOT because she was oppressed my her Muslim parents and religion, but because of white supremacy under Apartheid. Medicine was only for whites,!!! But this is not what this thread is about, is it?

Feminists understand the added difficulties faced by minority groups of women too, that is what being a feminist means. Being aware of and concerned about all issues that affect women.

You don't have to be an intersectional feminist to do so and IMO do a disservice to feminists if you suggest that if they don't label themselves as intersectional, they don't.

Smileless2012

So are you saying then VS that a woman's strongly held religious beliefs should be ignored? You appear to be contradicting yourself if that is the case, as that is not really supporting, or supporting at all the rights of those Muslim women who make their choices freely.

Maybe my comments are not clear enough?

It is permissable for a Muslim woman to see a male non Muslim doctor if no one else is available.

If a families individual teachings are not following this and any family member prevents needed treatment that is abuse because it is permissable when there is need.

That's where honor based abuse comes in

Honor based abuse is not acceptable or legal in this country

Do you understand what I am saying yet?

Of course an individual women may interpret her religion in a way that she refuses treatment. But I would argue with her that there is no shame in getting that treatment if the only doctor available was a man. I would beg and plead. Wouldn't anyone?

Sure doodledog

"No one has said xyz"

I havent said anyone has said xyz

Sadly you didn't read the article, perhaps you would then understand my point

The word you seem to have a problem with is "intersectional" yet I thought men oppressing women was a feminist issue... but you won't read the article about Muslim women fighting for equality?

A literal translation of "Intersectional" means understanding the added difficulties faced by minority groups of women too.

I face different issues to say, a black woman or a black Muslim women.

I would suggest you read the article if you are at least interested in the struggles of women who are also Muslim in that definition of intersectional

LGBTQ is nit mentioned if that helps

So are you saying then VS that a woman's strongly held religious beliefs should be ignored? You appear to be contradicting yourself if that is the case, as that is not really supporting, or supporting at all the rights of those Muslim women who make their choices freely.

Sensible post among sadly much hysteria.
Thank you for the injection of reason!

There is a lot of wriggling going on.

VS who has said or implied that they are in favour of honour killings? I was replying to your post that 'it' is abuse, and you're saying that you don't support religions that you see as abusive. I repeat - nobody is supporting abuse, and there are religious practices that many women choose to observe. Those women are not obliged to check with you first.

FP, I do understand your point, but however much you keep repeating that racism and trans rights are somehow connected, I just disagree. There is no link. Yes, attitudes to race have changed (thank goodness), but that doesn't mean that attitudes to the erasure of women will also change. Because there is no link, so comparisons make no sense. Maybe they will change, but if they do it will still have nothing to do with racism. I may read the book at some point. I wasn't dismissing it out of hand, but saying that whatever the point made in a novel about racism will make no difference to my views about either trans issues or the denial of bodily autonomy to women in 2022.

Glorianny picking at a minor point (that the role of doctors and nurses is different) doesn't alter the fact that a woman should not have to guess at the sex of a staff member. If it matters to her, she should be given the facts - no question. Whether the hospital can provide a female staff member is another matter, but at least she should know who is examining her so she can make an informed choice. I think my comment was in response to someone's question about whether the woman would be happy with a male doctor but not a nurse, which doesn't matter, any more than it matters why 'this woman is obsessed with transgender', if that is, indeed the case.

Unless there is to be some sort of committee who sits to adjudicate people's reasons for wanting bodily autonomy, the reasons are irrelevant. Some women don't want to be intimately touched by men other than by choice and with consent. That should be enough. It is difficult to believe that women are trying to come up with reasons why it should not be.

VS supporting other women means going along with what they want, not imposing what you think they should want. I'm not really bothered what an article on intersection feminism has to say. I can think for myself, and don't follow doctrines like that.

Smileless2012

If intersectional feminists really support each other and are a part of something bigger than their own demographic then they should respect a Muslim woman's freely made choice not to be seen by a male non Muslim doctor, and support her.

Likewise, they should be concerned that a Muslim woman could possibly unkowingly be seen by a male because that male is a trans woman.

Hmm

Well apart from intersectional feminism including LGBTQ

You must know that many Muslims themselves are LGBTQ?

Obviously an intersectional feminist is going to fight for the rights and safety of LGBTQ whatever their demographic

But I have always said that women should have safe spaces and the right to choose who cares for them if it is a matter of dignity and comfort.

If it is a matter of urgency and saving their own lives then there is nothing that should be getting in the way of their treatment. Not trauma and not religion of any kind.

If intersectional feminists really support each other and are a part of something bigger than their own demographic then they should respect a Muslim woman's freely made choice not to be seen by a male non Muslim doctor, and support her.

Likewise, they should be concerned that a Muslim woman could possibly unkowingly be seen by a male because that male is a trans woman.

A person's religious beliefs and culture should be respected.

It is wrong to assume that all Muslim women adhere to their religious and cultural beliefs under duress, and are being forced into making decisions that may affect their well being because they are being forced to do so.

Where that is the case it is wrong but it is also wrong to go against their wishes when they are held freely. The Muslim faith is not the only one that has rules when it comes to medical care. JW's wont accept blood transfusions.

For some Muslim women it is not permissible to see a male non Muslim doctor because of their faith. Shame or embarrassment has nothing to do with it.

www.refinery29.com/en-gb/muslim-feminism-womens-rights

Here

Also another reason why intersectional feminism allows feminists to really support each other and be a part of something bigger than their own demographic

Doodledog ''Fleurpepper, I have no wish to read the book. As I say, I don't see this as having anything to do with racism, but I do know how racism works and understand the rationale behind Apartheid. I don't need to read a novel to understand, and if you are suggesting that being concerned about the removal of bodily autonomy from women is akin to white supremacy you have completely lost the plot.''

You've sadly got the wrong end of the stick here! I am not talking about 'body autonomy' - but about how some groups are perceived, at certain periods of history. That later seem totally incredible and unbelievable, looking back. Jews in Germany, Blacks and Coloureds in Apartheid, and sadly, many more. Not comparing this at all with racism as for today in UK.

Why is this woman, with a clear agenda, obsessed with transgender? But, having been previously violated in some way by a man, totally OK with having male medical staff look after her, and have to examine her intimately? I would get it, perhaps, if she said she only wanted to have female doctors, nurses and carers (cleaners too? people serving her food???) - but why say, males and females ok, but not transgender. Some have said there are only 2 sexes in RL, so anyone transgender would be either male or female? So, this is not about 'body autonomy' - it seems clear to me, but about an anti trans-gender agenda. and as such totally different.

And the point I am making- is that in a generation, this kind of anti transgender agenda will look totally wrong and misplaced, and just prejudice.

Shame you won't read the book. It is a great story, very well written and very moving. Worth reading even if you totally disagree with me.

Anyone here who has read it. I recommend.

Surely Glorianny the point is that a woman shouldn't have to judge for herself. If there was no possibility whatsoever, that a trans woman who is a for example a nurse or doctor examining a female patient, who has requested females only, without them knowing that that particular nurse or doctor isn't female, then it would never be an issue would it.

glorianny is right

In the case of Muslim women, as was explained to me, treatment is far too often delayed unnecessarily by what they have been taught or what is expected of them by family members.

This is putting women's lives at risk of harm.

That's not acceptable when it is permissiable to see a male non Muslim doctor if that is all that is available.

There is no actual reason to delay treatment and there should be no shame or embarrassment for receiving it.