NHS patients to be interrogated about sexuality

[Brian Peacock]

I would actually expect that everyone knowing who is gay will increase discrimination.

Why/how? Because it will encourage a shrinking number of bigots to be increasingly more bigoted?

[Scot Dutchy]

I am so mixed up I could not answer. Been a bi should have been a trans and now? Never been true hetro. Put that in your database.

[NineBerry]

People discriminate even when they are not bigots. Prejudice influences what we do subconsciously. How does knowing how many gay people there are prevent discrimination? Subconscious discrimination will certainly increase. Plus it will annoy everyone having to ask and being asked.

[NineBerry]

"I am totally straight but like to get a blow job from my soccer buddy in the shower one in a while"

[PsychoSerenity]

Yeah, I entirely accept your point PS, but (ha!) in the context of discrimination one has to start somewhere eh? How else is an organisation going to answer the questions, "Do we discriminate against gay men, or lesbian Muslims, or ginger intravenous drug users?" (though discriminating against gingers is kind of a given I guess)?

I don't know. It's not an easy problem to solve. And perhaps collecting a lot of data together would help. But I think to do the job properly another part of the solution would be to have more qualified professionals working on the ground in an employee/customer/patient facing role able to listen in confidence to concerns or complaints of discrimination or any other issues, who can also give anti-discrimination training to staff and where necessary conduct specific investigations into any potential problems. But that's going to cost a lot more money than giving nurses another piece of paper to fill in.

[Brian Peacock]

Without getting all meta-meta SJW 'bout it, I think solutions to these kinds of issues start with individuals not with organisations - with each of us. Perhaps we're all inclined to a bit of casual racism here or there but it's not OK when passed as a given or a fact, so we have to be encouraged to actually think about these issues for ourselves rather than being told what to think by rule-giving diversity training which, it seems, often amounts to little more than a range of proscriptions on language without really addressing what inclines people to express themselves in those terms in the first place.

[Rum]

You can refuse to provide the information too of course - as it says in the article. If you are 'fluid' in your sexuality or mixed up you might just choose to say 'pass' or whatever. One sees many forms on the net with a 'prefer not to say' box after all.

The point is that it is for diversity monitoring - and not identifying the people they want to herd up and shoot when the day comes.

[PsychoSerenity]

The point is that it is for diversity monitoring - and not identifying the people they want to herd up and shoot when the day comes.

When the day comes the information could be in the hands of an entirely different bunch of people. I very much hope that never happens again here but it is happening right now in other countries where right-wing populism is on the rise.

[Scot Dutchy]

The point is that it is for diversity monitoring - and not identifying the people they want to herd up and shoot when the day comes.

When the day comes the information could be in the hands of an entirely different bunch of people. I very much hope that never happens again here but it is happening right now in other countries where right-wing populism is on the rise.

Which countries are those? Not France, Germany or the Netherlands.

[Rum]

The point is that it is for diversity monitoring - and not identifying the people they want to herd up and shoot when the day comes.

When the day comes the information could be in the hands of an entirely different bunch of people. I very much hope that never happens again here but it is happening right now in other countries where right-wing populism is on the rise.

You could say that abpout al sorts of information out there that is easily tapped.

Actually the only reason I seem to be defending this is Crumples doom laden OP - I was annoyed at the use of term 'interrogated' which is clearly not what will happen.

I am against any state organisation collecting information about individuals unless it is an absolute necessity.

[Scot Dutchy]

This is not information. It is very personal and I am glad here it is illegal to ask.

[Sean Hayden]

Just randomly select a sexuality for your patients, make sure it's not part of anything permanent, and reveal it to staff only... --poor patients though, amiright?

[Brian Peacock]

You're right.

[Sean Hayden]

[PsychoSerenity]

I think they need to be much clearer about precisely who will have access to this information and what it will be used for. By answering the questions could you effectively be coming out to every healthcare professional you will ever have for the rest of your life? I would very much hope not, but it's not clear. Will it be used along with your medical records as evidence against individual healthcare professionals that may be acting in discriminatory manor? Or is it more to look at general trends in healthcare outcomes for different groups? Is there a risk of assumptions being made about your individual healthcare needs based on the category you've been put into? From what I've read today I'm getting very mixed messages. It's not at all clear why this is necessary other than as a bureaucratic exercise.