Labour will make it easier to change gender and is considering allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.
The party is considering how to make the legally binding certificate easier to obtain while still having guardrails to prevent mirroring controversial proposals in Scotland that would have removed doctors from the process altogether.
The plans include ditching a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve gender recognition certificates, the document allowing transgender people to have their affirmed gender legally recognised, and only requiring one doctor to be involved in the process.
The Times understands that one option under consideration is that the doctor could be a GP. Labour would also remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change. A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor and would not allow people to self-identify in order to obtain legal changes.
They said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.
The discussions centre on concerns that if the single doctor was a specialist, a GP would still need to make the referral, therefore retaining the two-step process that Labour wants to drop.
There were also questions over whether GPs were qualified or had the capacity to make the decision. The Royal College of GPs said its members were already working under “considerable pressure”.
…
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said she would be concerned about “shifting sole responsibility for signing gender recognition certificates to GPs”.
She said while the college supported improving care for patients with gender dysphoria “including tackling the long waits they face for treatment and services”, she added: “For most GPs, detailed management of gender dysphoria is outside of our area of expertise.”
Seems more logical to increase rather then reduce options.
Its crap because of lack of GPS atm. But you always have a right to see a second gp. Or change your GP.
So surely even if you have a prejudiced GP. Thay are not all that way. Also historically laws change procedures. Little comparative history.
Back in the 60s it was illegal to give the birth control pill to non married women. And lots and lots of GPS were very vocal about that being correct. With some being anti pill in general.
But when the law changed. The fact that people had the right ment few GPs refused. Because why bother to fight a losing battle. And the ones that did changed over a few years.
Basically even with religious objections. Once the NHS guidance changes. GPS and doctors tend to adapt even if slowly in limited cases.
I’m sure things will get better with time, but that doesn’t change the fact things suck now. GPs don’t need to tell you no to be obstinate. Unlike birth control where they have to hand you something, they can conviently ‘forget’ to file a form, putting you on the run about for weeks, potentially months.
I also don’t see why a doctor needs to be involved with this at all. It’s not like changing your legal gender is a medical procedure. It’s annoying that Labour walked back on self-ID because they wanted to avoid looking too ‘lax’ on trans people when the Scottish government tried to introduce it.
No expert here. But in most situations. It is impossible to see any specialist. Without a GP or ER etc for situations that have resulted in an emergency or hospital visit of some form.
The NHS has never had the option to see a consultant. Without a more genral doctors recommendation.
So this is not suggesting labour would just add GPS to the process. They are already there and able to do as you suggest. Although you have the right to see the data and file formal complaints if the were being obstinate.
What they are suggesting is allowing GP to start the process with out needing the multi member board to validate the patients need.
So given the numbers. A few prejudiced GPs is still a much much greater list of people you can turn to, most of them following the guidance. Then the current methods that currently still allows some GPS to be arseholes.