The General Medical Council (GMC) has said that a doctor’s refusal to use trans pronouns does not put the safety of patients at risk.
In a letter to Dr. David Mackereth this week, the independent regulator also stated that although his views are “considered contentious” his fitness to practise is not impaired.
Mackereth—from Dudley, West Midlands—self-referred himself to the GMC after losing his disability assessor job in a pronoun row with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The 60-year-old had been undergoing DWP training to work as a disability assessor in Birmingham when he indicated to managers he would not refer to transgender patients by their preferred pronouns owing to his religious beliefs.
The tribunal heard that the doctor told a colleague he would refuse to refer to “any 6ft-tall bearded man” as “madam.”
Mackereth lost the case and subsequent appeal, with a panel ruling his biblical view of what it is to be male and female was “incompatible with human dignity.”
It also ruled that the DWP had not breached the Equality Act.
No Regulatory Action
In the letter to Mackereth, the GMC said it had “carefully assessed” the doctor’s case including the decisions of the employment tribunal and subsequent appeals.“In doing so we don’t believe this is an issue requiring further GMC action being taken with a view to removing or restricting your registration,” the regulator stated.
“Although your views might be considered contentious, we haven’t seen evidence to suggest that patient safety is at risk from the information provided nor that your fitness to practise is impaired.”
The GMC said it was clear Mackereth held a “strong view” on the subject “deeply rooted” in his religion.
The letter added: “Doctors are of course entitled to their views and this in itself wouldn’t be an issue requiring any regulatory action to be taken by the GMC.
“This would only become an issue for us should there be information to indicate that these views impact patient safety and or care.”
The GMC went on to state that there is no information to suggest the doctor had been approached by a patient for advice on this subject.
It was also noted that he had never encountered a transgender patient in an emergency setting or “that if a patient was, that they would be given inappropriate treatment or advice.”
“In our view, it would not be proportionate to consider what might happen in a hypothetical situation such as if you were to be approached by a transgender patient for instance and we could not open an investigation on this basis.”
It also dismissed a suggestion from the tribunal that the doctor’s views might contravene GMC guidance, stating “again there is no evidence to indicate that you have provided inappropriate advice or care to patients based on your views.”
The Christian Legal Centre, which is representing the 60-year-old, said it is thought to be the first time a professional regulator has considered the issue of misgendering and “ruled in favour of one of their members.”
ECHR case
In a press statement released on Friday, Mackereth said he was “delighted, grateful and encouraged” by the GMC’s response.“What the conclusion from the GMC exposes is that the DWP and the judiciary sacked and ruled against me based on what I think and believe rather than anything I have ever done in my 30 years as a doctor,” he said.
“I have been hugely disappointed by the failure of the UK courts to recognise that what happened to me was unlawful.
“I am more determined than ever to continue fighting for justice in this case and I hope and pray that the ECHR will take my case forward and take it very seriously.
“This would be the first time that the ECHR would scrutinise and rule on a case of this nature, so there is a huge amount at stake.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the doctor have lodged an application with European judges to address “questions it has never to date reviewed; that being the Convention implications surrounding compelled speech and forced adherence to gender identity belief as a condition of employment.”
His lawyers argue that Mackereth’s Article 9 rights to freedom of thought, belief and religion were breached by his employer.
They said that his “conscientious objection to transgenderism” is protected under the ECHR and therefore “his dismissal from employment under the circumstances of the case were of a disproportionate measure which cannot be determined necessary in a democratic society.”
Mackereth will also argue that his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been violated by the UK courts.
The doctor added: “My hope is that it will encourage medics across the profession to speak out more on these issues, especially those who are sitting on the fence out of fear of backlash.
“I also hope that it will encourage professionals in other sectors, such as teachers, who are currently facing enormous pressure to go against their conscience and conform to transgender ideology.
Freedom Unsafe
In a statement released to the media on Thursday, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, Andrea Williams, said the case “challenged the sanity of our society, and our society was found wanting.”“We welcome the official conclusion by the GMC, but the freedom to hold a belief but not express it is no freedom at all,” she said.
“More must be done to recognise and protect the freedom of professionals with christian and gender critical beliefs on these issues to use their professional judgment without fear of severe and unjust ramifications.”
Williams said Mackereth chose to sacrifice his professional career rather than “compromise on the bible and his conscience.”
She added: “The requirement to use transgender pronouns defies common sense and christian faith.
“It serves no useful purpose except filtering out firm Christians and men of principle such as Mackereth.
“If we tolerate this as a society, if we give in on the essential freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, no other freedom is safe.
“We are determined to fight all the way to secure justice in this case.”
The DWP did not respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.
