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

Lathyrus

But management can only provide female only care if they know who is female.

Of course there have been abusive female carers and medical staff too, as I have reason to know. But it is a safeguarding issue to be fully aware of the types of abuse, like rape, that are a possibility so that alarm bells can be rung.

I, in posts I have held, have accepted and agreed that in a position of responsibility, where children and vulnerable adults are concerned some of my right to privacy has to be given up. Advanced checks, previous names, previous positions held, disclosure of offences, information on close relatives or relationships are all standard practice in some positions.

Surely checks of the same standard should be in place in all places were vulnerable adults and children can be targeted?

Surely they are? Isn't that what DBSs do?

As for elderly care if someone is uncomfortable with a carer or nurse and isn't able to say so to staff shouldn't the relatives speak for them? And if it is males that make someone uncomfortable a transwoman might be quite acceptable, if the patient accepted and liked her

But management can only provide female only care if they know who is female exactly, and those receiving care can only know if they are being attended too by females, if they know their carers are female.

Sadly not all the elderly in receipt of care have relatives or anyone else for that matter to speak for them. For someone to decide whether or not they are happy to have a transwoman attend to them, they would have to know that they are trans.

Glorianny

Lathyrus

But management can only provide female only care if they know who is female.

Of course there have been abusive female carers and medical staff too, as I have reason to know. But it is a safeguarding issue to be fully aware of the types of abuse, like rape, that are a possibility so that alarm bells can be rung.

I, in posts I have held, have accepted and agreed that in a position of responsibility, where children and vulnerable adults are concerned some of my right to privacy has to be given up. Advanced checks, previous names, previous positions held, disclosure of offences, information on close relatives or relationships are all standard practice in some positions.

Surely checks of the same standard should be in place in all places were vulnerable adults and children can be targeted?

Surely they are? Isn't that what DBSs do?

As for elderly care if someone is uncomfortable with a carer or nurse and isn't able to say so to staff shouldn't the relatives speak for them? And if it is males that make someone uncomfortable a transwoman might be quite acceptable, if the patient accepted and liked her

Actually I think, where someone has limited capacity, accepting and liking, a carer could render them all the more vulnerable to abuse. I believe this is true and is borne out in accounts by survivors of abuse who had full capacity even.

Safeguarding shouldn’t rely on the feelings of f either person. It has to be much more robust than that.

Lathyrus

Glorianny

Lathyrus

But management can only provide female only care if they know who is female.

Of course there have been abusive female carers and medical staff too, as I have reason to know. But it is a safeguarding issue to be fully aware of the types of abuse, like rape, that are a possibility so that alarm bells can be rung.

I, in posts I have held, have accepted and agreed that in a position of responsibility, where children and vulnerable adults are concerned some of my right to privacy has to be given up. Advanced checks, previous names, previous positions held, disclosure of offences, information on close relatives or relationships are all standard practice in some positions.

Surely checks of the same standard should be in place in all places were vulnerable adults and children can be targeted?

Surely they are? Isn't that what DBSs do?

As for elderly care if someone is uncomfortable with a carer or nurse and isn't able to say so to staff shouldn't the relatives speak for them? And if it is males that make someone uncomfortable a transwoman might be quite acceptable, if the patient accepted and liked her

Actually I think, where someone has limited capacity, accepting and liking, a carer could render them all the more vulnerable to abuse. I believe this is true and is borne out in accounts by survivors of abuse who had full capacity even.

Safeguarding shouldn’t rely on the feelings of f either person. It has to be much more robust than that.

So are you saying that a patient has to accept care from someone simply because they've been passed through a safeguarding system? Because you think that someone they like is more likely to abuse them. So what choice does the patient get?

😬

I think we both know I didn’t say anything of the sort.

Sometimes it can be easier to carry out abuse if the victim likes, feels at ease with and trusts the perpetrator, which is why Lathyrus is correct when she says safeguarding must be more robust than a reliance on feelings.

As many abuse survivors relate, the initial approach is very often, “Ian your friend. I care about you.” Then “don’t tell anyone or they will send me/you away”.

We have to be so vigilant. Abusers are clever, many are charming, likeable people than instil trust both in those they abuse and those who could protect.

I can’t understand this reluctance for robust systems, that function without regard to individual personalities or emotional responses, to be put in place.

If such systems are in place then any group such as trans is being decried unfairly, can show that accusations are false. And those who are concerned about abuse can have confidence that everything is being done to prevent it.

It’s a win/win.

So why would anyone resist that?

“I am”obviously not Ian 🤭

Lathyrus
So why would anyone resist that?

I don’t know, but I’m sure I’ll be told.

volver

Ah sorry, one post then I'm off before the shouting starts...

Does anyone think it's acceptable to say that you won't accept a nurse of any description because you don't accept their "pronouns"?

Would it be OK to say you don't want Nurse X because they are black, or Jewish? Then publish a whole Twitter thread about how you got the hospital to change their minds? If I needed life saving surgery I'd have anybody I could on the medical team.

Whole things gone bonkers.

Totally agree - I'd accept medical support from any medical person!

We have a trans paramedic working on our local ambulances who said that some patients have refused to be treated by her.
(Even though they would be happy with either a male or female paramedic??)

If trans people were honest about which sex they are, regardless of their clothing, hair etc, there would be less ill-feeling towards them.

If someone asked for black staff, or Jewish staff, or anything else, and was assured that was what they'd have, they would be quite upset to get someone who was clearly not what was promised.

A main point of this case is that the woman had good reason for her request and was assured it would be met.

Another is that an intimate, physical examination should not be interrupted by someone popping their head in the door.

Surgery couldn't have been that important, their decision so no problem..

It is a problem though, if people end up turning down surgery because they can't trust the hospital to honour their wishes.

As has been said, I'm not saying that everyone should be able to choose the staff who treat them based on age, sex, race or anything - particularly on the NHS. But if someone explicitly says that they only want a female environment and is prepared to pay to get that, it should be honoured, or at least they should be told it ca't be before someone walks in on them in the middle of a sensitive examination.

I am sorry but I don't see how anyone can insist or a purely male or female surgeon and team. If you get that by paying privately that's unfair for those that can't. I never wanted men examining me intimately but had no choice if I wanted treatment unless I suffered the consequences.,The NHS is stretched enough.

Private medicine is unfair . if you can pay you can jump queues, get appointments at times to suit your schedule, see the consultant you want and have privacy in hospital, and of course that's unfair to those who can't (and potentially fatal to those being pushed out of the queue).

That's a separate discussion, but if you accept all of those things, there is little difference if you want to specify the sex of the team treating you.

Whatever a patient asks for, they should be informed honestly whether they will, or will not, get it.

Passing off a male person (transwoman) as female is dishonest.

The rights of the patient should be put first, to at least have honest communication from a hospital, not the 'right' of male people to pretend to be female.

Exactly. The rights and wrongs of private medicine, or of what people should be able to pay for are separate to the ethical issue about a hospital agreeing to something they cannot provide, or if they can, that they are not prepared to ensure will happen. It doesn't matter whether the request is reasonable or not. If someone asks for George Clooney to operate in pink scrubs the hospital should explain that this is not possible before taking the money.

My understanding from what I remember reading at the time is that the hospital itself was not directly culpable at the time of the incident - it was (I think) the nurse who chose to enter the room, knowing that the patient had expressly asked that this should not happen. At that point the hospital should have taken action.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

reported