Tuesday 22nd December 1998

Transsexuals win right to operations

By John Aston

Three transsexuals yesterday claimed victory in their High Court test case over a health authority’s refusal to fund sex change operations.

They won a landmark ruling against North West Lancashire Health Authority’s decision not to pay for surgery, costing between £7,000 and £9,000 each, which medical specialists say is vital to complete their male-to-female transformation.

Mr Justice Hidden ruled at London’s High Court that the decision was “unlawful and irrational” and had been taken without consideration of what was “the proper treatment of a recognised illness”.

“Miss A”, aged 21, “Miss D” and “Miss G”, both aged 50, were refused gender re-assignment surgery in 1996 and 1997 after it was decided that none of them had shown a demonstrable “overriding clinical need” for treatment.

The health authority, which covers Blackpool and Preston, said it was entitled to take into account its own “scarce resources” and refuse funding.

But the judge ruled yesterday that it was not entitled to operate a policy which interfered with its duty to provide treatment “for the prevention of illness and care of persons suffering from an illness”.

Later Stephen Lodge, solicitor for the three, said: “This is an important test case.  We have successfully settled a number of previous cases, but this is the first time the issue has been fully considered by the court and we are delighted with the decision.

“Other health authorities will now have to assess whether their policies for the treatment of transsexuals are lawful in the light of this judgement.

“We hope it will be easier for transsexuals to obtain the treatment they so clearly need, and that it will help to alleviate the present injustice of arbitrary and unequal treatment by postcode.”

Miss A, who was in court, had already undergone three operations before the treatment ended because of the authority’s policy.

She said: “I am not surprised.  It is the end of two years of hard work in fighting this legal battle.  They should not have discriminated by post code.”

Copyright © 1998 Independent Newspapers Ltd