January 16, 2010 7:15 PM GMT
As expected, dryer than desiccated dust.
I was aware of most of it's contents, but nice to see it consolidated and in writing.
Personally I don't expect to see many changes in operating procedures - the NHS is a large and somewhat immovable object, and the proposed constitution is not an irresistible force.
Even when I have tried to implement some of the rights mentioned, and gone to the extent of taking a formal complaint as far up the line as I could, either extenuating circumstances or something along the lines of 'that is the procedure, it will not be changed' were produced.
It looks good, the sentiments are impressive, and no doubt cost a lot in time and money to produce, maybe it will be implemented, but bottom line I don't see much changing.
January 16, 2010 8:58 PM GMT
it doesn't apply to us...we are mental cases, remember.
A Judicial Review might find a weak link in the PCT's armour but I think there will be clauses such as 'if local funding allows it' etc.
There are numerouse cases on record of PCT's being called to account in the High Courts for failing to administer care and treatment in the case of the trangendered. where the PCT's have decided to make up their own minds as to the interpretation of what constitutes GD..GID. and why they should refuse various aspects of treatment in the main Gender corrective surgery. Reading numerous cases, each case has a different slant on why treatment was withheld, Basically the amount of money wasted fighting these cases and subsequent appeals has cost the PCT's 10's of millions of pounds, despite numerous studies and judicial reviews stating its easier and cheaper to deliver what is needed in the way of effective treatment. In fact several PCT's were found to be of the opinion that the type of surgery was distasteful and totally uneccesary.
http://gendersociety.com/[...]729077&
Cristine
