Sexual identity activists' work on behalf of trauma victims is the contrary of successful advocacy | allnewsservices

Sexual identity activists' work on behalf of trauma victims is contrary of successful advocacy

As someone who has participated in patient advocacy, I'm furious.

A retired lawyer who needed surgery had her appointment postponed due to a letter she wrote to the hospital that made no mention whatsoever of her experiences with sexual assault. The topic is already spreading on social media. However, it goes into great detail about her resistance to "Gender Ideology" and "using pronouns," and she makes several legal claims therein that I feel are untrue, including a list of protected rights to demand services by her "advance directive."

Expectably, opinions on this specific instance have been divided between those who support and oppose the woman in question. Gender Criticism figures are understandably outraged that her consultation was canceled and believe that the institution was acting absolutely improperly (according to their opinion that the protected position of "Gender Critical ideas" in law authorizes nearly any degree of demands imposed on this basis). The lady in issue is plainly unreasonable, resources are lacking, she is a "Karen," it's not the staff's concern if she's a bigot, etc., argue several health care providers and trans advocates. I'm feeling a little anxious.

I concur with others who argue that she is being unreasonable because she explicitly states in the letter that she wants to misgender or otherwise degrade employees that she suspects may be transgender (something no employer is legally allowed to knowingly subject their staff to, whether they are trans or not). She requests an "all-female" nursing and support staff team while stating categorically that "trans-recognizing males are not females." This clearly implies that management will face significant difficulties in meeting her demands simply because they are legally still unable to ask their employee to disclose their trans status. She also makes it apparent that she views her request as a form of the contract upon which her consent to medical treatment is based.

In fact, she goes one step further and requests several amenities such as a private room and bathroom, which the hospital makes clear are simply not accessible in the acute medical ward that is currently offered due to the way the hospital is built. She also demands that the hospital provide these amenities to "all women patients." All of this occurs in the context of a tirade that begins with her citing the high rates of expressed as follows fetishism and pornographic-driven perversion among "males" and describes one of the employees as "a young male in what did appear to be a blonde wig, carrying late - night make-up, including scarlet lipstick" — an obviously quite appearance - related characterization of anyone who she describes as "brazen" for successfully making eye contact. She does raise a legitimate issue about a staff member who knocked but didn't wait to enter during a case where she may have been disclosed at some time. Although these things do occur, it is fair to express dissatisfaction and request that they are corrected.

What then is the issue? How does this relate to advocacy?

Because I've spent a large portion of my life assisting people who are in various stages of being "unreasonable," I have an issue with just saying "she's being unreasonable" and leaving it at that. Friends, lovers, and other people who have gone through trauma frequently require assistance getting to appointments, especially those who have a difficult time getting access to healthcare due to a variety of factors, including prejudice and—more importantly—a history of discrimination. Throughout my life, I've spent a lot of time with folks who struggle to obtain what they need from those services sitting next to them in doctor's clinics, speaking with social workers, or even watching benefits evaluations.

Different people are affected by trauma, a lifetime of prejudice, and violence in different ways, but frequently none of these effects are positive. We create unhelpful coping mechanisms. Some people grow more antagonistic and believe their healthcare providers are scheming against them. Due to the tension and dread that traumatic experiences trigger in others, especially autistic persons, they may physically become incapable of speaking, going nonverbal. Personally, I attempt to satisfy others, avoid going to the doctor's office completely, and occasionally burst into tears in the middle of a physical exam because I forgot to disclose my own personal injury.

As an explanation, peer advocacy typically involves one person who needs assistance navigating a system that is traumatic for them and another person who, because it is not their personal issue as an advocate, finds it to be fundamentally less stressful. You take on the job of attempting to translate the needs and wishes of the person in need of care into the system. I do peer advocacy much less now than I used to because I have less free time, A brief guide for experts could be useful so they can comprehend the issues the person is facing and how you intend to work with their trauma in light of the resources the particular health provider can offer.

I won't go into great depth regarding the kinds of changes that folks could require or be given. To prepare for the possibility of being exposed to these individuals in a neutral setting, meet with the specialists who will be participating in the process in advance.

• Set boundaries that are explicit about not getting care from certain people the care recipient does not feel comfortable with.

• creating a detailed documented care plan to eliminate any possible pain spots and increase trust in what is going to happen,

• Have a family member or trusted friend assist you with any procedures that may be upsetting if done by a visitor 

• When triggers cannot be avoided, medical assistance with anesthesia can be used to lessen the impact of especially distressing examinations.

Nothing in this post should be taken as medical advice because everyone's triggers are different and can be brought on by a wide range of factors.

The main objective of peer outreach and the mark of a Strong peer advocacy organization is to distinguish between the person you're advocating for's conspiracy theories, anxiety, and other negative emotions related to the possibility that traumatic experiences will surface as a result of receiving healthcare and to separate out those from their actual stated needs. Instead of repeating things that derail their care, you are there to listen to them and assist them to express what they are expressing you they need. In Teresa's case, this might entail separating her demand for female caregivers or ensuring that smashing occurs from her rants about her views of women or pornography, which are less obviously related to securing the individual's healthcare needs than they are to expressing fears and worries that she has. Additionally, it may entail contacting the hospital and asking, "Okay, I realize that you can't guarantee that none of your personnel are actually trans, as this is a fear of Teresa's, but can you inform her whomever her crew will be so that she has decided to go forward with treatments or go elsewhere? Basically, it is identifying the challenges faced by the person you are advocating for and, if possible, finding out how to communicate those challenges to healthcare experts to achieve the desired result while minimizing any potential conflict.

Naturally, not all "requirements" are realistically achievable, and occasionally people cannot access the healthcare they require, but a key component of effective advocacy is being the human who is not overly emotionally charged to be able to listen to the needs of others and assist them in clearly communicating those requirements to a service supplier without leading the provider to reject them.

People who have experienced trauma often act in strange ways. Being triggered is the worst. Because they are triggered by a reflex response to memories or adversarial relationships and events that are most often not even occurring in the present, people in such states say and do things that are personalities and drag themselves off of what they had planned. People who are triggered might become illogical, unintelligible, confused, paranoid, aggressive, and even hallucinate! I find this narrative and how it has split people to be so terribly depressing because it tends to make individuals less rational and less capable of advocating on their own behalf.

The letter's author, "Teresa," could not want to receive the medical attention she requires due to her ideological convictions. She won't learn whether it's possible to get what she needs if she's acting out of trauma and without the assistance of a sort of advocate who doesn't have a different political goal (as her GC buddies definitely have), and that makes me feel very sad.

Because of the ways that her decisions and self-advocacy have prevented her from accessing healthcare, many individuals have reacted to her narrative by wishing for her to suffer harm. I firmly believe that everyone, including those who have caused harm, deserves healthcare coverage, and that it's critical for society as a whole to do all possible to provide care to one another. Everyone has the freedom to make poor choices for their own health, but those who are dealing with trauma are nonetheless accountable for their actions if those choices cause them to lash out at other people.

However, I believe we must work to develop approaches to assisting individuals in getting what they require to heal and grow rather than addressing negative thoughts and actions through retaliation.