Always let your conscience be your guide? Part 4

The Christian Medical Fellowship is at it again. This time, it has gender reassignment surgery in its sights. And just like all the other times, its relationship with facts is non-monogamous.

Dr Peter Saunders of the CMF is claiming that doctors risk disciplinary action if they refuse to carry out gender reassignment surgery. He says this is yet another symptom of how Christian doctors are being marginalised and penalised for their beliefs.

However, the Royal College of Surgeons has confirmed that gender reassignment operations are not something a general surgeon would be expected to do. There are many different kinds of surgery involved and like other areas of specialist surgery they require training. A doctor who had objections wouldn’t elect to be trained in this area in the first place.

So where is the problem? Has Dr Saunders read the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Not surprisingly, the Mail has written Doctors 'forced to carry out sex-change ops' under rules meant to 'marginalise Christian medics'.

They got the story from Dr Saunders’ blog Christian Medical Comment where he claims that ‘Legislation and regulations are being used to marginalise Christian health professionals in Britain. British medicine in the 21st Century now involves practices which many doctors regard as unethical. A significant number of doctors do not wish to be involved in sex-change operations or prescribing contraceptives to unmarried couples.’

He gives no evidence for what this ‘significant number’ might be.

The CMF website says things like

God created each of us in his image, male and female, and he doesn't make mistakes… This issue has tremendous implications for society at large and the institution of marriage in particular… the doctor's duty in treating his/her patients is to restore people to what God originally intended … giving sex change treatment goes beyond this remit.

In his rant blog, Saunders refers to the General Medical Council’s current consultation on personal belief and medical practice, including conscientious objections. Draft guidance says

‘You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values’ and adds ‘The exception to this is gender reassignment since this procedure is only sought by a particular group of patients (and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection)’.

Gender reassignment surgery has been available on the NHS since 1999 and the Equality Act 2010 prohibits doctors from discriminating against people who are undergoing gender reassignment treatment. So this is not just something the GMC has come up with on a whim, it’s the law.

Although his blog mostly relates to surgery, Saunders also mentions GPs with religious objections who would not currently be allowed to opt out of referring a patient to a specialist or providing related treatments.

It appears that he has not read his own web site. For example, one doctor writes:

I would emphasise that I am no expert in this type of problem and would be happy to refer him to a psychologist to explore his request further.

This may be a fudge to avoid being accused of discrimination but it would ensure that the doctor’s beliefs would not affect the patient. It also means that Saunders does not even represent all CMF members or Christian doctors.

The GMC consultation closes on 13 June. The CMF’s response to the consultation is here.

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once

The Mail, the Telegraph and other media who love the Christianophobia story have done a very good job.

In a parliamentary question last week, Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln, asked Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Women and Equalities, “if she will bring forward legislative proposals to protect workers who choose to wear a visible cross or crucifix.”

Featherstone replied: “There is nothing in domestic law that denies people the right to wear visibly a religious symbol such as a cross or crucifix while at work. Employers need to have proportionate and legitimate reasons—for instance in order to comply with health and safety requirements—if they want to restrict their employees from openly wearing any religious item.
“We believe that domestic law already strikes the right balance between the rights of employees to manifest their faith and that of employers to place legitimate and appropriate restrictions on that freedom. There are no current plans to change the law in this respect.”

Just to make that extra clear: There is nothing in domestic law that denies people the right to wear visibly a religious symbol such as a cross or crucifix while at work.

A couple of weeks ago, Lord Alton asked whether the Government has "any plans to clarify the law in respect of Christians wishing to wear a cross in the workplace."

Baroness Verma replied for the Government, saying:

"No. We have no plans to change the law. At present there is nothing in UK law that denies people the right to express their religious views - including through the wearing of a religious symbol such as a cross - while at work. Employers need to have proportionate and legitimate reasons if they want to restrict their employees from openly wearing a cross or any other religious item. We believe that in this respect domestic law strikes the right balance between the rights of employees to manifest their faith and that of employers to place legitimate restrictions on that where appropriate, for instance in order to ensure patient safety or for health and safety reasons."

Again, for clarity: At present there is nothing in UK law that denies people the right to express their religious views - including through the wearing of a religious symbol such as a cross - while at work.

What’s more, the health and safety requirements don’t just apply to crosses, they apply to all jewellery.

How much clearer can it be? No one is stopping you wearing a religious symbol to work unless it’s a danger either to you or other people. No one is stopping Christians going to church. No one is banning Christmas. No one is stopping you standing up in Parliament asking the same question over and over so that the Mail and the Telegraph can write about it again so that more people can believe the lie and get worked up.

Doesn’t McCartney follow what happens in the Lords? Maybe he already knew the answer and thought that if he asked again he might get a different one that he liked better. Or maybe that no one would remember Lord Alton asking it. Or that if a lie is repeated enough times, it will become true.

Small children think that asking the same question over and over will wear down the adults until they give in. Small children think that not always getting what they want means they are being punished or deprived. Small children have tantrums when they don’t get their own way. It’s a shame no one can put these brats on the naughty step.

2 September 2012: Latest update from the National Secular Society

Dr Kendall's Gay Away

***

Tired of being gay? Who wouldn't be?

Try Dr Kendall's new Gay Away and be an ex-gay today.

Based on years of research, trained therapists using a stick with a picture of Jesus on will poke the gay out of you.

Guaranteed to maximize your heterosexual potential!

Tony B from Cheltenham writes: "I bummed men for 17 years. Now I'm ex-gay and I have a girlfriend. Thank you, Gay Away, you saved me from burning in hell".

Only £499 a session (+ VAT). May not work on lesbians.

*** A picture of someone who looks like a doctor but isn't actually me.