No, they have not been respected.

The blanket imposition of a male only policy is paternalistic and disproportionate, and seems to be on the basis of either my sexual orientation as a heterosexual male and or my gender. That is discriminatory. That would be the same as saying, "doctor will only see white patients only, blacks not allowed."

The exemption to this would be where there was a justifiable reason for this, and as I have already stated elsewhere, the definition of the UK here of what constitutes a justifiable reason is very narrow and very narrowly interpreted. As someone with a legal background, I should know these salient issues.

Even if there was a concern about a breakdown in my relationship with ONE doctor, there would be no objectively justifiable reason for the imposition of a prohibition of my contact with any female doctor unless for example, I posed a danger to them, or the sight of them would for example, trigger a psychotic episode. Neither of these two issues are on the table.

Furthermore, here in the UK, I would be legally entitled to recieve formal, written notification (a warning letter if you will) as to the reasons why I was considered a violent/abusive patient, unless such information would manifestly cause a risk of immediate, imminent harm to the staff. With no history of violence documented to anyone, ever, period, at any time of my life, it would seem this exceptionally unlikely.

Where a doctor acts in a manner, that would be likely to contribute and or worsen an already pre-existing medical condition, this is grounds for clinical negligence. By virtue of the fact that the lack of proper communication for the reasoning behind this autonomously reached decision, this was materially and directly contributed to an anxiety disorder which I already have, thereby satisfying objectively the requisite conditions of a pre-existing condition.

Therefore, due to the aforementioned points, delineated above, I would argue that they have NOT "respected my rights as a patient."

One final note. Here in the UK, doctors may decide that a patient SHOULD recieve life-saving treatment for example, surgery or a blood transfusion. They can discuss that among themselves until they are blue in the face but, if the patient possesses legal capacity to withdraw consent to treatment, then the doctors cannot legally impose treatment and would be required then to respect the patients wishes to discontinue treatment even where the patient could be saved, and the patient would die as a result.

Any attempt by medical personnel to force treatment in such a situation would become grounds for assault, and grounds for them losing their job. Again, just because they THINK they know best, does not automatically give them the right to impose their will, no matter how many of their esteemed colleagues "back them up."