A drop in the ocean in the great schemes of things....but replicated by how many more

The original post rightly questions the amount of time and money wasted on the Peggie/Upton case. NHS Fife was to blame for their 'misinterpretation ' of the Equality Act, their claim to have acted according to their policy (there was none, and certainly no discussion with staff) and to have granted permission to Upton to use the female nurses' changing rooms.His subsequent behaviour was vicious and vindictive.

No employee can be compelled to use a person's chosen pronouns, although there appears to be a great deal of persiflage surrounding this issue and those dealing with transgender rights in general. Men, no matter how they describe themselves have no right of access to female changing rooms, and it is dreadful to see that women have to take their cases to court to prevent this.
Having read some of the NHS Management 'guidance' quoted here I fear for the future. Far too much emphasis on the feelings and demands of the transgender contingent, little on the people who work with them, It is wrong to attempt to persuade anyone to use the wrong pronouns and accuse them of 'misgendering' and to agree to share private spaces.
"You cannot change your biological sex" Robert Winston.
So stop pretending.

The NHS like all other institutions (but even more so) should stop worrying about any hurty words that trans patients dislike and treat them as the males they are.The ruling is that you are born a certain sex and stay a certain sex, blonde wigs and false pink nails notwithstanding.
Male patients should be in male wards and male prisons and hopefully now are.

Ilovecheese

As far as I can see from the cases being discused on here, medical staff did keep their personal feelings to themselves in front of the patients. I expect though, that the nurse that was called racist names was very hurt and upset when she was simply requesting a sex specific piece of equipment.

In every medical setting I've been to in recent years there have been notices saying that abuse of staff will not be tolerated, and making it quite clear there will be consequences. In Nurse Melle's case the consequences of being racially abused and physically threatened by a dangerous patient appeared to be totally directed at her.

Allira

Yes, atheters for men and women are different in length and for good reason.

So if someone is claiming to be a woman, they could in fact object to having a longer catheter designed for a man fitted which could cause real problems, even a haemorrhage and renal failure.
If they have a penis and require a catheter designed for that then they are a man whatever they may claim.

This is where it gets beyond ridiculous and becomes dangerous.

It is obvious Allira that ALL patients are individuals and require the right size catheter according to need, for good reason.

In theory any patient, transgender or not transgender might object to a catheter being inserted. Their objections and lack of consent for the insertion of the correct catheter would be noted and recorded.

Nurses and doctors insert the correct catheter according to clinical need to minimise risk of harm. Your inference Allira that if a transgender person objects to the correct length of catheter this would result a nurse or doctor insert the wrong length catheter for a transgender person, therefore placing them at risk of haemorrhage and renal failure, quite frankly that is absurd and ridiculous. Doctors and nurses do not knowingly put their patients at risk of harm.

Do you think you may be going a bit off topic? You are indeed speculating about a highly improbable situation.

Yes, atheters for men and women are different in length and for good reason.

So if someone is claiming to be a woman, they could in fact object to having a longer catheter designed for a man fitted which could cause real problems, even a haemorrhage and renal failure.
If they have a penis and require a catheter designed for that then they are a man whatever they may claim.

This is where it gets beyond ridiculous and becomes dangerous.

Size and length is the criteria and you just specify that.... what else is needed?

Rosie51

Really? Are you disputing catheters are sex specific? You don't just say I need a catheter, you have to specify whether it's for a male or female, but carry on with your claimed ignorance. The prisoner patient overheard Melle asking for a male catheter.

I asked a question, the clue was in "do you agree?" You of course are free to agree or disagree. I did not suggest the tribunal ruled on it, they weren't asked to, it formed no part of the defence. However it is fact that Upton made a formal complaint against the patient. An elderly woman with advanced dementia who addressed him as the male she clearly saw with her own eyes. You were the one who introduced putting your "personal feelings and beliefs aside", something Upton clearly failed to do, obvious to anyone with one iota of compassion.

Catheters of various sizes and lengths are available on all NHS wards where they might be needed. You just walk and get it. If not available on one specific ward, at the time of need, a nurse or doctor would simply put out a request to another ward for the specific size you require. You would not need to specify, vocally in the vicinity of a transgender patient that you are requesting a male or female catheter, just specify the size you require.

All qualified Registered Nurses and doctors determine the size and type of catheter required as a result of their clinical assessment. The anatomy of all patients is self evident on clinical assessment.

Rosie51

Galaxy

Yes that's the one, warned for calling a male paedophile Mr. Imagine anyone thinking that it was appropriate to do that, it is orwellian. If I remember rightly it was in relation to the insertion of a catheter which I understand is sex specific. As I say they battle for language will be a long one, she used the defence of her religion which will be interesting to watch when not if there are further cases in the future.

Yes catheters are sex specific. Just think about the biology in relation to the bladder and outlet in both sexes. Women have a much shorter urethra which is why they are prone to more urinary infections. The male urethra runs from the bladder through the prostate down the length of the penis before reaching the exit. If Nurse Melle had requested a catheter for 'Ms prison patient' it would have come up much too short, but hey his feelings wouldn't have been hurt.
And this is an example of the absolute madness of putting people's 'gender feelings' above medical science. In so many situations the physical differences between male and female bodies require sex specific information. Heart attacks presen totally differently in males and females. Blood results that would be normal for one sex can be an indication of something serious in the other.

Thanks Rosie51 and others for bringing some much-needed medical information and indeed common sense to the thread.

Really? Are you disputing catheters are sex specific? You don't just say I need a catheter, you have to specify whether it's for a male or female, but carry on with your claimed ignorance. The prisoner patient overheard Melle asking for a male catheter.

I asked a question, the clue was in "do you agree?" You of course are free to agree or disagree. I did not suggest the tribunal ruled on it, they weren't asked to, it formed no part of the defence. However it is fact that Upton made a formal complaint against the patient. An elderly woman with advanced dementia who addressed him as the male she clearly saw with her own eyes. You were the one who introduced putting your "personal feelings and beliefs aside", something Upton clearly failed to do, obvious to anyone with one iota of compassion.

Rosie51

Do you now accept that Melle had to correctly sex the prisoner when ordering up a catheter, that there was a sound medical reason?
Nurses and Drs etc however are required to put their personal feelings and beliefs aside do you agree Upton failed utterly in this respect when he lodged that complaint against an elderly woman patient suffering dementia who referred to him as male?

I have no idea what you are talking about Rosie51 regarding having to "correctly sex the prisoner when ordering a catheter."

Why are you expecting me to agree with your personal opinion that Dr Upton "failed utterly" in some way. What failings of Dr Upton did the tribunal actually find and rule upon? None as far as I'm aware.

If you have any evidence to the contrary feel free to detail and posters can decide whether they wish to respond.

As far as I can see from the cases being discused on here, medical staff did keep their personal feelings to themselves in front of the patients. I expect though, that the nurse that was called racist names was very hurt and upset when she was simply requesting a sex specific piece of equipment.

We are trained you're a doctor or nurse? So you already knew that catheters are sex specific!

Do you now accept that Melle had to correctly sex the prisoner when ordering up a catheter, that there was a sound medical reason?
Nurses and Drs etc however are required to put their personal feelings and beliefs aside do you agree Upton failed utterly in this respect when he lodged that complaint against an elderly woman patient suffering dementia who referred to him as male?

Rosie51

^The patient, who happened to be a prisoner, under bed watch by 2 prison guards was going for a urology investigation I understand but that does not have any particular relevance.^

Well it most certainly does, see my post above.

Do the 'feelings' of people offended and hurt by being compelled to lie by language not count? If not, why not?

I understand and accept that is your personal opinion.

Nurses and Drs etc however are required to put their personal feelings and beliefs aside and practice within their codes of practice. We are trained to accept that whilst practising in the work place, our priority and professional responsibility is to treat all as set out in our code of practice, act lawfully on all occasions and treat all equitably.

The patient, who happened to be a prisoner, under bed watch by 2 prison guards was going for a urology investigation I understand but that does not have any particular relevance.

Well it most certainly does, see my post above.

Do the 'feelings' of people offended and hurt by being compelled to lie by language not count? If not, why not?

Galaxy

Yes that's the one, warned for calling a male paedophile Mr. Imagine anyone thinking that it was appropriate to do that, it is orwellian. If I remember rightly it was in relation to the insertion of a catheter which I understand is sex specific. As I say they battle for language will be a long one, she used the defence of her religion which will be interesting to watch when not if there are further cases in the future.

Yes catheters are sex specific. Just think about the biology in relation to the bladder and outlet in both sexes. Women have a much shorter urethra which is why they are prone to more urinary infections. The male urethra runs from the bladder through the prostate down the length of the penis before reaching the exit. If Nurse Melle had requested a catheter for 'Ms prison patient' it would have come up much too short, but hey his feelings wouldn't have been hurt.
And this is an example of the absolute madness of putting people's 'gender feelings' above medical science. In so many situations the physical differences between male and female bodies require sex specific information. Heart attacks presen totally differently in males and females. Blood results that would be normal for one sex can be an indication of something serious in the other.

It will be interesting to see how the NMC rules in the Melle case re misgendering allegations.

The patient, who happened to be a prisoner, under bed watch by 2 prison guards was going for a urology investigation I understand but that does not have any particular relevance.

Some may not agree - but prisoners have a right to NHS "equivalence" ie they are entitled to the same treatment and standards of care as anyone else. Whether they are murders, paedophiles, rapists or whatever the nature of their crime, they must be treated with dignity and respect, confidentiality etc etc. You lose a right to freedom when a prison sentence is imposed but not human rights.

There is another interesting one at the moment against a union, that one was under my radar a little but again interesting. The usual claim about discrimination due to gender critical beliefs, but also claiming the organisation had adopted gender identity as an institutional belief.
I was concerned in the Forstater case when the concept of belief was introduced ( biological reality is not a belief in my view) but it has been one of the most successful tools in this fight, I am wondering if the phrase institutional belief may be similarly useful.

This is why many NHS Trusts settle as in the Melle case- it's cheaper. It has been said on occasions that NHS Trusts on use health care regulators like the NMC to deal with complex cases by way of referrals for investigation - to offload costs, complexity etc.

Yes that's the one, warned for calling a male paedophile Mr. Imagine anyone thinking that it was appropriate to do that, it is orwellian. If I remember rightly it was in relation to the insertion of a catheter which I understand is sex specific. As I say they battle for language will be a long one, she used the defence of her religion which will be interesting to watch when not if there are further cases in the future.

That is the actual tribunal cost- building, tribunal chair etc. But the parties involved- employee and employer pay their own costs.

The employee is usually represented by lawyers paid for by their union, for example Royal College of Nursing for nurses. The trade unions are also funded via subscriptions.

Meandrogrog

I assume this is taxpayers money paying for these issues? I really take issue with public monies being spent in this way,.

Madness.

Meandrogrog

I assume this is taxpayers money paying for these issues? I really take issue with public monies being spent in this way,.

Especially ones that are taking money away from the NHS and patient care.

It's quite disturbing to realise how much money NHS Management is prepared to waste to uphold their position on this.

NMC misconduct proceedings cost the tax payer nothing. All NMC work is funded by the Registered Nurses annual subscription.

Yes Employment tribunals, which support employees are funded by the Government via by tax payments.