Question for the legal minds and especially sweet Cristine's:
is the UK NHS under a positive obligation to provide sex change aka genital surgery speedily and without needing proof of need as per the ECHR verdicts in Van Kuck v Germnay 2003, L v Lithuania 2007 and Schlumpf v Switzerland 2009?
I say yes.
This post was edited by Former Member at February 16, 2012 6:30 PM GMTI'm not up on German federal law, and it depends on what you mean by ''without needing proof of need'' Its my considered opinion regardless of any EHRC rulings, that once you have been diagnosed and accepted for treatment, There is an obligation for PCT not to delay ongoing treatment to a satisfactory conclusion'' obviously dependant on a patients health and that they the patient followed the guidelines and requirements laid down by the GRA to qualify. Appeals Court: N-W Lancashire Health Authority v A, D and G Full text of the judgment of the Appeals Court July 29th, 1999 However, this was the first challenge to such a policy where the issue was decided by a court — with a judgment in favour of the three trans women applicants, issued by the High Court in December 1998. The Health Authority later appealed, and in July 1999 the Appeals Court upheld the High Court ruling. The case received extensive press coverage. The result of tthis case is that it is now illegal for a Health Authority to impose a blanket ban on funding medical treatment for the purposes of gender reassignment. There are several High court rulings ''precedents'' pre GRA It was these cases that the UK was forced to draft and adopt a gender recognition act by the EHRC.
Government Announcement on Transsexual People by Rosie Winterton MP Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department 13 December 2002 Background On 11 July the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgments in the cases of Goodwin -v- The United Kingdom and I -v- The United Kingdom. The Court found that the United Kingdom had breached the Convention rights of these two transsexual people, under Articles 8 and 12 (the right to respect for private life and the right to marry). In answer to Questions before the Parliamentary recess, colleagues and I made clear the Government's commitment to announce later in the year how we proposed to implement the rulings. The Interdepartmental Working Group, whose initial report the then Home Secretary presented to Parliament in July 2000, had recently been reconvened to give further consideration to the implications of giving transsexual people full legal recognition in their acquired gender. In light of the Goodwin and "I" judgments, the Group's terms of reference were expanded and it was tasked to report in October. Ministers have now collectively considered the recommendations received from officials. Legislation We will aim to publish, in due course, a draft outline Bill to give legal recognition in their acquired gender to transsexual people who can demonstrate that they have taken decisive steps towards living fully and permanently in the gender acquired since they were registered at birth. That will make it possible for them (if otherwise eligible) to marry in their acquired gender. The Government is committed, therefore, to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights. Whether Parliament at Westminster should legislate for the whole of the UK on this matter is under consideration, particularly in view of the inter-relationship between devolved and reserved policy aspects.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, otherwise known as the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, or the Oviedo Convention, after Oviedo, Spain, the place where it was first signed, is a 1997 treaty drafted by the Council of Europe regarding various aspects of bioethics. It entered into force on 1 December 1999. (The rights to treatment) on which the UK government accepted into the GRA recognising that after previous court cases, GID was treatable.
''Cristine, you are out of date and ECHR verdicts applied to a German also apply in UK courts'' . Rose its doubtfull you could use current or subsequent ammendments or Judicial precedents to UK laws or EHRC directives that were not in forces at the time of the period you are compaining about. Why do you worry about judgements in the EUC in favour of Germany etc, when the cases I quoted set a judicial precedent for the UK and forced the advent of the GRA. Why complicate matters. Refering to the ''just turn up at doctors and say I wanna change sex.'' I presume one would have to see doctor Aziff.......
Different members have different versions of a Gender recognition Act, all ratified by the Strasbourg Courts HR, some countries have a policy of enforced sterilisation, some have enforced surgical procedures, as long as each country applies it's own version of the Act as passed by Strasbourg, the other countries acts are irrelevant.
(article 8), holding that the German civil courts had failed to respect "the applicant's freedom to define herself as a female person, one of the most basic essentials of self-determination": it stated that "the very essence of the Convention being respect for human dignity and human freedom, protection is given to the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security."
Is the relevant section, but is precondional on the requirements of the person concerned complying with the requirements of the GRA and following the guidelines of transitioning.
And only has a bearing if the NHS failed to follow guidelines for treatment by deliberately denying treatment on the basis of costs or the incompetancy of administrators amd or discrimination.
The european Human Rights charter is not absolute in its entirety, where member countries have their own Gender Recognition Acts,Normally unless a member country contravenes it's own gender recognition act then you can not appeal to the the Human rights commision. Our act like others were ratified by the commison in Strasbourg. In some countries, the acts they have adopted, rules within their own acts that contravene other aspects of the Human rights charter. Enforced medical procedures, in Italy and France, one has to be sterilised before a person can get a GRC. In two countries, SRS is demanded before one can get a GRC. several countries have no GRA at all, untill someone reports a case of a breach of human rights under their own countries laws, will the Euro commision, make a consideration, to argue prisoners getting the right to vote is nothing to do with it. prisioners still do not have the right to vote in a lot of eauropean states. also the arguement over the health insurance, was that the petitioner claimed they know they suffered dysphoria at an early age, so therefore should have entered that under the declared illness/medical criteria when they applied for the private medical cover. In my humble opinion the commision in that case were wrong. Same when applying for motor insurance and not declaring driving convictions or you are missing an arm and a leg, or in the case of medical insurance failing to state you already know you have a terminal illness when applying for said insurance. (an analogy)