Christmas Hampers Germany - Send Joyful...
History0 min ago
Nhs Asks Patients To Choose From 12 Genders, 10 Sexual Preferences And 159 Religions
'NHS asks patients to choose from 12 genders, 10 sexual preferences and 159 religions
Some registering with the online portal before they attend appointments have said questions are bizarre, confusing and intrusive.'
Why do they ask this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This standard will enable health and social care organisations to monitor sexual orientation in a way that is consistent with all other parts of the healthcare system.
The implementation of this standard will deliver benefits across a number of areas:
1. Care providers and commissioners are able to demonstrate that there is equitable access for LGB individuals;
2. care providers and commissioners have an improved understanding of the impact of inequalities on health and care outcomes for LGB populations;
3. policy makers, care providers and commissioners can better identify health risks at a population level. This will support targeted preventative and early intervention work to address health inequalities for LGB populations, thereby reducing expenditure linked to treatment costs further down the line.
sp:
The proportion of the UK population aged 16 years and over identifying as heterosexual or straight was 93.6% in 2020; there has been a decreasing trend since the series began in 2014.
An estimated 3.1% of the UK population aged 16 years and over identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) in 2020, an increase from 2.7% in 2019
Office of National Statistics.
So, 94% of the population has to be so inconvenienced by filling in sheaths of forms (not to mention the costs) to suit the needs of such a tiny goup ?
Surely this can't be the right way.
“…that's not harm, that's naomi complaining
With considerable justification. She has a questionnaire which asks “…if I am, or ever have been, an 'individual of child bearing potential'.”
If I was a woman I would be absolutely outraged to be asked such a question. The phraseology is ridiculous. People with “child bearing potential” are women. A woman who has suddenly decided to present herself as a man is still biologically a woman, whatever she may think and whatever “certificates” she holds which allege the contrary. More than that, of course, not all women have “child bearing potential”. Some are permanently barren. So how do they answer that question? And who, of the two (a woman who has decided she is a man, and a woman who is permanently barren) is likely to be more upset that they should be asked the simple question of what their sex is in such a manner?
The NHS is likely to disappear up one of its many orifices if it continues with this nonsense. Its task is to treat the sick and injured (something that, on the whole, it does not manage particularly satisfactorily). It does not exist to indulge in social surveys into matters which are none of its concern.
“NJ; You must lead a sheltered life if you find it all too much for you.”
I don’t find it all too much for me at all.
The NHS costs this country a fortune and it is not particularly good at what it does. In fact, in many respects, it is absolutely abysmal. People are entitled to be critical when they see such lunacy. Yet it can find the resources to compile this absolute nonsense. Just thinking up the phrase “individual of child bearing potential” must have taxed many minds and numerous committees. It’s so nonsensical, that if you saw it in the paper on April 1st you’d think it was a joke. It’s as if the use of the word “woman” will see all NHS employees burn in Hell.
If they truly believe that women can change into men merely by saying so (and it seems they do, which is a bit of a worry when you consider their line of business) then why do they not ask “are you or have you ever been a woman?” What is it about the word “woman” which troubles them so much.
"I think outrage is a bit much over this to be really honest newjudge..."
I get outraged very easily when an organisation which accounts for more than 20% of all government expenditure fannys about like this, especially when its performance is so dire and it continually bleats about "lack of resources". These ridiculous activities will do absolutely nothing to improve its dire service nor to improve the health outcomes for the overwhelming majority of its captive patients.
Then there's the issue of its apparent refusal to use the word "woman". It's a perfectly useful and appropriate word which describes roughly half of the population. So why the need to replace it with claptrap such as "individuals of child bearing potential"?
It's unadulterated cobblers. I've just had to spend a tidy sum on medical treatment because the NHS was unable to provide it in a timely manner. Part of the reason it couldn't is because its managers spend their time and my money on nonsense like this. Then there's my dislike of the offence being caused to women by referring to them as "individuals of child bearing potential." I'm entitled to be outraged. And I doubt I'm alone.
//So, 94% of the population has to be so inconvenienced by filling in sheaths of forms (not to mention the costs) to suit the needs of such a tiny goup ?//
If the NHS were to stop spending money on non-medical matters I wonder what the saving would be? If I were in hospital needing treatment I really don't give tuppence for filling in nonsensical paperwork.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.