Reply to Bewley (2012)
- 156 Downloads
I should like to thank Professor Bewley for her interest in this case.
In response to Bewley’s (2012) specific queries, the patient was seen by me privately. It would not have been appropriate for me to assess a patient seeking private surgery on the National Health Service (NHS). I had no relationship with the surgical provider. I am often asked to assess patients planning cosmetic surgery and commonly advise against a proposed procedure because of a psychiatric disorder or the patient’s unrealistic expectations. I had sought general advice from my medical defence society before I assessed this patient. As stated in my original report (Veale & Daniels, 2012), I did interview the husband prior to any procedure. In my subsequent response to Friedman and Levine (Veale, 2012), I reflected that it would have been preferable to take a longer history from him.
Professor Bewley questions the appropriateness of publication. Surely, it is better to publish such cases openly and stimulate...
KeywordsNational Health Service Cosmetic Surgery Female Genital Mutilation Public Prosecution Gender Reassignment
- BMA. (2004). Female genital mutilation: Caring for patients and child protection. Guidance from the Ethics Department.Google Scholar
- Home Office. (2002). Female genital mutilation bill explanatory notes, Bill 21-EN. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
- Home Office. (2005). Explanatory notes to prohibition of female genital mutilation. (Scotland) Act Crown.Google Scholar