This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Doctor loses tribunal after refusing to use transgender patient's chosen pronoun

An employment tribunal judgement that rejected a doctor’s discrimination claim after he refused to address a transgender patient using the correct pronouns has ‘profound ramifications’ for the profession, his lawyers have warned.

Dr David Mackereth, a doctor from Dudley, left his job as a disability benefits assessor after he would not refer to transgender claimants by their chosen sex, saying it went against his Christian beliefs.

He took his employer, the Department for Work and Pensions, to tribunal, claiming it had breached his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The 56-year-old brought a claim for harassment, direct and indirect discrimination against the DWP.

The tribunal panel threw out the claim, sparking the doctor’s lawyers to warn the case will have ‘profound ramifications for all medical professionals’ and that it puts a belief in the Bible ‘on a par with neo-Nazi ideologies’.

During the tribunal, the panel heard how Dr Mackereth left his job after a conversation with his line manager.

The judgement noted: ‘Essentially the issue he [Dr Mackareth] raises is that he was asked if he would refer to service users by their chosen sexuality, and thus their chosen style or title, relevant pronouns and their name, and that equated to the respondent [employer] applying pressure upon him to renounce his beliefs.’

In the judgement it was noted that Dr Mackereth claimed he had been ‘interrogate[d]’ by the DWP – but that he later admitted he ‘takes no issue with the manner in which that was done’ meaning ‘Dr Mackereth’s complaint essentially is that this was done at all’.

The panel went on to unanimously conclude that ‘lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism' are 'incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals’.

The Christian Legal Centre, which represented Dr Mackereth, said: ‘The ruling will have profound ramifications for Christian professionals and all medical professionals, as it dictates the language that professionals must use in the workplace.

‘It also excludes foundational Christian beliefs from the protection of human rights and anti-discrimination law. The ruling itself puts a belief in the Bible on a par with the racist and neo-Nazi ideologies which have been held to be “not worthy of respect in democratic society” in earlier judicial decisions.’

Responding to the judgment, Dr Mackereth, who now works as an emergency doctor in Shropshire, said: ‘I am not alone in being deeply concerned by this outcome. Staff in the NHS, even those who do not share my Christian convictions, are also disturbed as they see their own freedom of thought and speech being undermined by the judges’ ruling.’

Dr Mackereth said he would be appealing the case ‘to fight for the freedom of Christians – and any other NHS member of staff – to speak the truth’.

Related images

  • Law-Legal-Hammer-Court 3x2

Readers' comments (27)

  • Truely sympathise with you Dr Mackereth but if your profoundly held beliefs are in conflict with many of your potential clients, maybe you you should just step-away from your emotional and philosophical conflicts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just remind me which bit of the bible says which pronouns doctors should use when addressing transgender patients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • From now on I am self-identifying as a Professor, and woe betide anyone who fails to address me as "Professor".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • DrRubbishBin

    Beware. Open debate is not possible and freedom of speech is dead. This news site is heavily moderated and any views expressed must align with the editor or they will be deleted. You must comply or shut up.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • this was an absurd case that should never have been taken, the patient should simply have been booked with someone else so both sides have their views respected.... how much did this whole episode cost? Stelvio sums this up most succinctly....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An silly case where both sides display intolerance and lack of common pragmatic sense.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I identify as a 70 year old therefore I am aretired GP with a full pension and would like it now please - sorry I mean I demand it now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is what comes of giving credibility to single issue madmen whose rights have bee enshrined in law. It makes a mockery of common sense. There are so many people abusing the transgender role for personal gain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When the risperidone supply problem was evident, and my CMHT told me to see my GP because my symptoms had returned I was horrified that my GP refused to address me as "IKEA" despite him knowing full well that I had realised the non-dual nature of reality and intuited that there was no separation between me and the chair in the consulting room.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mistakenly use wrong pronoun? No problems. Refuse to do so based on your personal beliefs? A bit different. Whilst the whole “able to identify as anything at a seconds notice” is obviously ridiculous, a balanced decision to change gender seems reasonable to me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say