From Religion or Belief: a practical guide for the NHS, published earlier this month:
Any NHS employer faced with an employee who by virtue of religion or belief refuses to work with or treat a lesbian, gay or bisexual person, or who makes homophobic comments or preaches against being lesbian, gay or bisexual, should refer to its anti-discrimination and bullying and harassment policies and procedures, which should already be in place. Whilst everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, colleagues and patients should be treated with respect at all times, and should not be subjected to discrimination or harassment on any grounds whatsoever. It should be made clear that such behaviour is unlawful and could result in legal proceedings being brought.
And later, under a section headed “Trans People”:
Discriminatory behaviour towards LGBT people (or indeed against anyone for whatever reason) should never be tolerated under any circumstances.
Of course having rules is one thing: enforcing them is quite another. Given that many NHS Trusts have for years been operating access to treatment policies that are openly discriminatory and blatantly illegal, you have to wonder how much good such a document can do.
The same logic applies to laws. They’re important to have but they don’t change anything on their own. Laws draw the line on what’s acceptable and what isn’t. But for change to really occur then people have to alter their behaviours.
Documents like these are bricks. Sensible people will build better services with them but, if all else fails, the policy statements they convey provide something to throw.
I was one of the critical readers for this publication months back at a draft stage and ensured that some topics were covered well.
CB
Christine:
Exactly. I keep making this point to people who get over-wrought about whether or not laws are passed. Such things provide a useful marker. They are not panaceas.
On the other hand, we wouldn’t even have markers without people like you doing all that hard work. Thank you!
Interesting. This brings to my mind two marginally related issues:
1) Does the NHS have anything like the trouble we have in the US where health care providers want to refuse to provide contraceptive or abortion services because of personal (or institutional) morals?
2) There’s an antidiscrimination case in process here (western Pennsylvania) that claims a man was harassed and fired for acting effeminate. He’s gay, but there’s no law against that kind of discrimination in his town, so the lawyers decided to argue that it was a sex discrimination case because he did not act manly enough for his gender. It’s very interesting, but I think it doesn’t have much of a chance. More info here: http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A55680
Erink:
The document linked to above has this to say about abortion:
However, it also adds that staff with religious scruples should not be required to assist in terminations. So the NHS has a duty to provide the service, but individual staff can be exempted from having to actually perform the operation.
On contraception it warns staff against pushing prescriptions on people who might have religious objections to using it.
As to your other question, things here are a little different. It isn’t quite the same thing, but it is heartwarming.