473
edits
Nonbinary healthcare (UK): Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5
(Rescuing 14 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Provision of care: the law== | ==Provision of care: the law== | ||
Under the “Legal Responsibilities and Obligations” section of the 'Guidelines For Health Organisations Commissioning Treatment Services For trans people' [https://web.archive.org/web/20150814230029/http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/parliamentary-guidelines.pdf] it references case law confirming the obligation for UK Health Authorities to make treatment available for gender dysphoric individuals (North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G, Court of Appeal, 1999) [http://www.britishcaselaw.co.uk/north-west-lancashire-health-authority-v-a-and-ors-1999-ewca-civ-2022-29-july-1999]. The Authority had denied funding for three gender dysphoric individuals to receive medical treatment via the NHS by effectively operating a blanket ban on funding for such treatment. In the court case the Authority's argument was ''“...challenged by a large body of evidence on affidavit and in written statements from leading experts on the subject relied on by the respondents. They included Dr. Ludovicus Gooren from the Netherlands, Professor Russell Reid from the Hillingdon Hospital, Professor Richard Green of the Charing Cross Hospital and a number of other consultant psychiatrists... They all asserted that hormonal and surgical treatment was recognised as the only suitable and effective treatment for the condition”''. | Under the “Legal Responsibilities and Obligations” section of the 'Guidelines For Health Organisations Commissioning Treatment Services For trans people' [https://web.archive.org/web/20150814230029/http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/parliamentary-guidelines.pdf] it references case law confirming the obligation for UK Health Authorities to make treatment available for gender dysphoric individuals (North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G, Court of Appeal, 1999) [https://web.archive.org/web/20180902195051/http://www.britishcaselaw.co.uk/north-west-lancashire-health-authority-v-a-and-ors-1999-ewca-civ-2022-29-july-1999]. The Authority had denied funding for three gender dysphoric individuals to receive medical treatment via the NHS by effectively operating a blanket ban on funding for such treatment. In the court case the Authority's argument was ''“...challenged by a large body of evidence on affidavit and in written statements from leading experts on the subject relied on by the respondents. They included Dr. Ludovicus Gooren from the Netherlands, Professor Russell Reid from the Hillingdon Hospital, Professor Richard Green of the Charing Cross Hospital and a number of other consultant psychiatrists... They all asserted that hormonal and surgical treatment was recognised as the only suitable and effective treatment for the condition”''. | ||
''“(Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC for the respondents)... prefaced his submissions by making the point that, although the Authority is exercising delegated powers of the Secretary of State under sections 1 and 3 of the 1977 [National Health Service] Act in its area, it must nevertheless give effect to the overall purpose declared in section 1 of promoting an improved comprehensive service throughout England and Wales for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. He accepted that it was for each Regional Health Authority and its medical advisers to devise a policy of priorities for the treatment of illnesses of various sorts and severity. However, he submitted that policies should be sufficiently flexible as not to impose a "blanket" denial of treatment even where in individual cases a clinical need for it could be demonstrated... an outcome clearly contrary to the object of the 1977 Act”''. Although affected nonbinary individuals are covered under the above case law as gender dysphoric individuals, the Real Life Experience requirement in current healthcare guidelines for medical treatment such as GRS presents a barrier to services equivalent to a ''“...'blanket' denial of treatment even where in individual cases a clinical need for it could be demonstrated”''. | ''“(Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC for the respondents)... prefaced his submissions by making the point that, although the Authority is exercising delegated powers of the Secretary of State under sections 1 and 3 of the 1977 [National Health Service] Act in its area, it must nevertheless give effect to the overall purpose declared in section 1 of promoting an improved comprehensive service throughout England and Wales for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. He accepted that it was for each Regional Health Authority and its medical advisers to devise a policy of priorities for the treatment of illnesses of various sorts and severity. However, he submitted that policies should be sufficiently flexible as not to impose a "blanket" denial of treatment even where in individual cases a clinical need for it could be demonstrated... an outcome clearly contrary to the object of the 1977 Act”''. Although affected nonbinary individuals are covered under the above case law as gender dysphoric individuals, the Real Life Experience requirement in current healthcare guidelines for medical treatment such as GRS presents a barrier to services equivalent to a ''“...'blanket' denial of treatment even where in individual cases a clinical need for it could be demonstrated”''. | ||