Last year, I reported on the plight of Dr. David Mackereth, a British MD with 26 years of experience who lost his job because, as a Christian and as a man who understands biology, he would not comply with UK government orders that he use pronouns the patients “preferred” to describe their gender “identity”, rather than pronouns that actually describe their scientific gender.
At the time, Mackereth appealed the government move, and now, more than a year later, the slowly turning – or in his case, grinding – gears of so-called “justice” have rolled out their verdict.
According to the government court, he was wrong to resist the government dictate, and he is not welcome to work for the government-run National Health Service (NHS) of Britain.
Dr David Mackereth, 56, told his manager he would not ‘call any 6ft tall bearded man “madam”’ because it went against his religious beliefs. The doctor, from Dudley, West Midlands, alleged the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) discriminated against his religious beliefs, costing him his job as a disability claim assessor.
The doctor also argued that his NHS employers did nothing to accommodate his religious beliefs and that any patient who was not satisfied with his approach easily could have been referred to another assessor.
But the social-justice rot is deeply set in the NHS and the courts of the UK, so Dr. Mackereth and scientific reality have been written-off.
(A) tribunal panel rejected his claims and unanimously concluded that the doctor not only had a ‘lack of belief in transgenderism’ but his ‘objection’ to it was ‘incompatible with human dignity’.
A doctor whose success during years of study depended on his understanding scientific reality, a man whose professional precision requires, in absolutely stark terms, that practitioners know if a patient is biologically male or female – purged from his job because he adheres to biological reality.
And this while the cult-like, fiction-embracing tribunal has the pernicious and absurd gall to stake a claim on “human dignity”…
How long until men like Dr. Mackereth are taken to George Orwell’s infamous fictional creation “Room 101” to be tortured and reprogrammed – all to conform to what the agents of the state define as “human dignity”?
Observers of contemporary collectivist politics have been mentioning Orwell’s name a great deal recently, calling-up nods to “Newspeak” in recognition of how bureaucrats and politicians repeatedly manipulate the language to further their statist goals.
But it’s more than just rhetoric. In his most famous novel, “1984”, Orwell (real name Eric Arthur Blair) thrust his protagonist into “Room 101” to be tortured by the government, to have his mind broken, to make him conform to the government version of reality. Smith repeatedly told himself, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four…” His torturer repeatedly held up four fingers, telling him there were five.
For those who have not read it, I will not spoil the outcome of the tale.
But this author-created atmosphere is becoming contemporary reality, not fiction.
To think that England could reach such an absurd extreme makes one think that, perhaps, Orwell saw the seeds of this mental disorder within the collectivist mindset -- that he knew collectivism required the purge of dissenting views, and the UK was headed in that direction.
Indeed, now, insanity that some people from Orwell’s era might have thought a bad joke has been embraced by the NHS and reaffirmed by the court. Now, men must be called women, and women, men.
But, as I have stressed to students, the medical profession is the perfect example of why one should not use “gender-fluid” pronouns. The medical field requires scientific precision. Males and females are biologically different. If one is a doctor in an emergency room, one needs to know if the patient being brought in is male or female. Proper treatment often depends on this distinction. The medical field cannot function properly if an ambulance-traveling EMT radios-in information using politically correct pronouns, or using “they”, when only one patient is in transit.
This is reality, and it’s not wise to mess with it.
It’s also a lie to say that a man is a woman, or vice-versa. As Dr. Mackereth explained in an interview with Christian Concern:
'It’s, quite simply, dishonest, to use pronouns in that way. There’s no other way of saying it. And as a Christian, it really matters whether we use language in an honest or a dishonest way. As a Christian, in good conscience, I cannot do that, because, quite frankly, it’s a lie.'
Spot-on. And as a doctor, Mackereth has it right, also:
'There’s the integrity of the medical profession. That what we’re being asked to do now is so contrary to sound reason… I really do believe that a profession such as the medical profession which depends on its intellectual integrity, its academic rigor, cannot maintain that once it starts to embrace arguments which are contrary to reason.'
But collectivism is not based on individual reason. It is based on force overcoming individual reason, the herd trampling the individual, the cultish belief stifling the truth.
This is precisely what Orwell warned would happen, and perhaps his writing of the novel in 1947 contributes to a kind of temporal poetry, for it was that year that the collectivist National Health System was established by the UK government, when this steamroller of Newspeak in medicine began to move.
And now, in addition to all of its delays, mismanagement, and ethically questionable attempts to hide its inefficiency, the NHS is crushing reality.
Which might tell those of us outside the NHS something important. Something about steering clear of government controls over healthcare – or anything, for that matter. When the state runs something or “regulates” it, the state dictates reality.
Even when that reality is untrue. Even when the government absurdly and recklessly claims men are women and women men.
Even when the state says “two plus two is five”, and we know that’s a lie.