HebrideanUltraTerfHecate on Nostr: https://thecritic.co.uk/patients-have-a-right-to-know-a-doctors-sex/ When asked if ...
https://thecritic.co.uk/patients-have-a-right-to-know-a-doctors-sex/
When asked if this would place a burden on female patients to disclose sexual trauma prior to receiving requested female-only care, Upton insisted that any patient can refuse to be treated by any doctor, if they ask that doctor to leave. Dr Upton stressed that “consent is very important” but agreed with Ms Cunningham that if a patient requested female only care Upton may still be assigned to provide treatment and it would be up to the patient, after already requesting female only care, to further request not to be treated by Upton. Ms Cunningham suggested that this approach was cruel, but Dr Upton disagreed.
Dr Upton appears to be operating from the presumption that there is a legal right to keep information about one’s sex private in the context of providing intimate care and examination to female patients who have requested female only care and who have been told that is what they will receive. This is not accurate as a matter of law.
Ordinarily, a person’s sex is not private or sensitive information. For those who have gone to, sometimes extensive, measures to hide their natal sex, one can readily appreciate that information pertaining to it might be sensitive to the individuals involved. Whether this is also private information for the purposes of legal rules prohibiting disclosure is the central question here. To answer it, one must consider issues of both fact and law. As a matter of fact, something cannot be private information in contexts where it is not private. I have red hair. If I am in a room with another person, it will be obvious to them that I have red hair. I cannot claim that this is private information in that context: as a matter of fact, this is readily ascertainable to anyone who can see me.
When asked if this would place a burden on female patients to disclose sexual trauma prior to receiving requested female-only care, Upton insisted that any patient can refuse to be treated by any doctor, if they ask that doctor to leave. Dr Upton stressed that “consent is very important” but agreed with Ms Cunningham that if a patient requested female only care Upton may still be assigned to provide treatment and it would be up to the patient, after already requesting female only care, to further request not to be treated by Upton. Ms Cunningham suggested that this approach was cruel, but Dr Upton disagreed.
Dr Upton appears to be operating from the presumption that there is a legal right to keep information about one’s sex private in the context of providing intimate care and examination to female patients who have requested female only care and who have been told that is what they will receive. This is not accurate as a matter of law.
Ordinarily, a person’s sex is not private or sensitive information. For those who have gone to, sometimes extensive, measures to hide their natal sex, one can readily appreciate that information pertaining to it might be sensitive to the individuals involved. Whether this is also private information for the purposes of legal rules prohibiting disclosure is the central question here. To answer it, one must consider issues of both fact and law. As a matter of fact, something cannot be private information in contexts where it is not private. I have red hair. If I am in a room with another person, it will be obvious to them that I have red hair. I cannot claim that this is private information in that context: as a matter of fact, this is readily ascertainable to anyone who can see me.