1. Complaint to the Human Rights Commission lodged on 20 March 2016, using the headings and format on their website)

2. Follow-up Complaint to Ombudsmen.

3. Reply from Ombudsman

4. Reply from Hospital Complaints Section

5. Formal Acknowledgement from Hospital Complaints Section

6. Substantive Reply from Hospital

7. Further Complaint to Ombudsmen

8. Further Reply from Ombudsman

9. Letter to Hospital Chief Executive

10. Substantive Reply from Hospital

11. Third Complaint to Ombudsman

12. Third Reply from Ombudsman

13. Complaint to Ombudsman about Ombudsman

14. Fourth Reply from Ombudsman

What kind of solution would you like ?

1. A reply which addresses the issues which I have raised. That is a bare minimum. They have no answer that is morally defensible or non-discriminatory, which is why they have not answered.

2. A commitment by CCDHB that they will treat men on an equal basis with women, e.g. (a) setting up an Andrology Ward and (b) not pre-judging men to be perpetrators and women to be victims of Domestic Violence, which is grossly oppressive towards men, and reinforces the other man-haters, who can then point to the statistics generated by this discriminatory process to buttress their own discriminatory anti-male stereotypes.

In due course, I received the following reply from the Human Rights Commission:

The above reply has its good points, although there may be grounds to challenge it. In the meantime, I have followed its advice and written to the Ombudsmen as follows:

Dear sir/Madam,

At the suggestion of the Human Rights Commission, I am writing to request that you investigate and review the failure of Wellington Hospital (Capital and Coast District Health Board) to provide me with a substantive reply to the concerns expressed by me in the following email to them:

"From: peter.zohrab@vodafone.co.nz [mailto:peter@zohrab.name] (NB I have corrected an error in the email address.)
Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016 10:27 a.m.
To: Communications Unit [CCDHB]
Subject: (Attention: The Chief Executive) Wellington Hospital's Sexism and Discrimination Against Men

Dear sir/Madam,

I am writing to draw your attention to the legal liability of Wellington Hospital for its discrimination towards men.

I note that men die younger than women in New Zealand, on average.
Despite that, I also note that Wellington has TWO female-only specialties (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), but NO male-only specialty -- i.e. it has no Andrology wards. In fact, I doubt that you have even heard of Andrology (https://www.andrologyaustralia.org), a term which is totally absent from your website. Although there is probably no research on this topic, it is likely that your failure to place men's health on the same level as women's health is one of the causes of men's premature deaths. In other words, you are a female-dominated organisation which is committing gendercide against males.

You are similarly man-hating (misandristic) in your domestic violence policies. Wellington Hospital's screening policy for Family Violence excludes men, which is sexist and discriminatory.I note from page 13 of "The Wellingtonian" of 21 January 2016 that only female patients of your emergency department will be screened for having been victims of domestic violence. Apart from anything else, that fact promotes the Feminist propaganda ploy that violence by women against men does not even exist, or is somehow irrelevant. The vast bulk of research that indicates that women are just as violent towards men as the converse -- see the Domestic Violence Annotated Bibliography at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm, which"examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners." (accessed 26 January 2016).

Of course, if your man-haters deliberately choose sources which filter data through a fog of man-hatred, as the police and courts do, then there will appear to be more domestic violence against women than against men. However, the Domestic Violence Annotated Bibliography's research is free of such biases. Women are more likely to call the police, the police are more likely to side with women, and so are the courts. Because of all the television propaganda on domestic violence, women are also more likely to admit to having been hit by a man, which is practically a badge of honour in present-day New Zealand, whereas men are unlikely to mention having been hit by a woman, because of the man-hating attitudes of the current New Zealand culture. So nurses, with their limited intelligence, are likely to resort to such sources, whereas a scientifically competent person would choose unbiased sources."

I would be grateful for any help you can provide me with in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

A short time later, I received the following reply from the Ombudsmen:

Later, I received an email from the Consumer Experience Facilitator at Wellington Hospital, as follows:

The promised formal acknowledgement read as follows:

And eventually I received the substantive reply below:

The most recent of the Statements of Intent mentioned above is at http://ccdhb.org.nz/aboutus/Documents/SOI%202012%20Pre-Final.pdf and the most recent of the Annual Plans mentioned above is at http://ccdhb.org.nz/aboutus/Documents/Annual%20Plan%202015-16%20-%20Capital%20&%20Coast.pdf . The hospital's Violence Intervention Programme is described at http://www.ccdhb.org.nz/community/VIP.html .

The hospital's reply was totally unsatisfactory, so I wrote to the Ombudsmen as follows:

Dear Mr. Ilott,

In your emailed letter of 12 May 2016, you stated that I could contact your Office again if I experienced any additional undue delay in receiveing a response from Wellington Hospital. I suppose that I can contact you also if the response which I do receive (although timely enough) fails to address the issues mentioned in my initial communication to the hospital. I am contacting you again for that reason.

1. I had complained that "Wellington has TWO female-only specialties (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), but NO male-only specialty -- i.e. it has no Andrology wards." In its reply, the hospital pretended that I was asking about "male only wards", without mentioning the word "specialty" or "Andrology". Obviously, I was not just talking about the way the furniture was arranged! I was talking about having staff trained to deal with male-specific conditions, in the same way that Gynaecology involves female-specific conditions. If the hospital wished to claim that all that Andrology involves is how patients' beds are arranged in the hospital, then it should have stated that explicitly, so that I would know what its position on this matter is. I would then have been able to refute it.

2. Instead of answering my question, he referred me to large and general documents (Statements of Intent and Annual Plans), without stating which sections contained anything of relevance to my inquiry. I am convinced that there is in fact nothing in those documents which is relevant.

3. The hospital was equally evasive in dealing with the issue of discrimination against men as regards domestic violence/family violence. I had specifically mentioned the newspaper report that "only female patients of (its) emergency department will be screened for having been victims of domestic violence." The hospital did not directly state whether this report was true or not. Instead, it talked about an "over-riding policy principle". The hospital's reply to me was in bad faith, since its Violence Intervention Programme is described at http://www.ccdhb.org.nz/community/VIP.html and clearly prioritises women over men.

Could you please ask the hospital to address the above points?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

I received the following reply from the Ombudsman:

Accordingly, I then wrote a follow-up letter to the Hospital as follows:

25 June 2016

Chief Executive
Capital and Coast District Health Board
Private Bag 7902
Riddiford Street
Newtown
Wellington

Dear sir/Madam,

At the suggestion of the Ombudsman, I am writing to you as a follow-up to correspondence I have been having with Wellington Hospital.

Under the Official Information Act, could you please inform me:

1. What information you possess as to the equity, human rights and medical issues surrounding the need to have an Andrology specialty and an Andrology ward at Wellington Hospital, as well as the current Gynecology and Obstetric specialties and wards.

2. What plans you have to screen both male and female Accident and Emergency patients on an equal basis for having been victims of domestic violence. I wish to point out that screening only female patients is discriminatory, a breach of men’s human rights and amounts to either a predetermination that only females are victims of domestic violence or a sexist disregard for male victims of human rights. I further wish to point out that screening only female patients will (and is probably designed to) generate only statistics relating to female victims of domestic violence – which will then be trumpeted in the media as yet another dishonest pretence that male victims of female domestic violence do not exist. I refer you to Professor Martin Fiebert’s annotated bibliography of domestic violence research, which

   examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

I eventually received the following substantive reply:

Since the above clearly avoided answering my questions, I wrote to the Ombudsman's Office as follows:

Dear Mr. Ilott,

I refer to your letter dated 24 June 2016. I have benefitted from your comments and written the attached Official Information request to Wellington Hospital.

However, their substantive reply (also attached) quite clearly avoids answering both my questions.

Could you therefore please investigate and review the hosital's failure to answer my questions, and direct them to answer them in good faith, since good faith has clearly been lacking in their responses so far.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

In due course, I received the following reply:

I replied as follows:

Dear Rachel Petterson,

I find your letter dated 14 October 2016 to be either negligent or malicious.

There were two issues which I raised with the Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB): 1.) Andrology and 2) Family Violence. The reply from the CCDHB which I complained to you about addressed neither of my questions directly.

1) As regards Andrology, your letter states that the CCDHB has informed YOU as follows:

"Moreover, the CCDHB confirmed that it did not hold any information ‘as to the equity, human rights and medical issues surrounding the need to have an Andrology speciality and an Andrology ward at Wellington Hospital’. The CCDHB advised this Office that it had made enquiries with clinical staff, and checked its policy and documentation database, and are not aware of any other agencies that may hold this information."

Those two sentences do (at last) actually address my question about Andrology, but you do not seem to understand that it is your duty to instruct the CCDHB to give that answer TO ME, which they have so far not done. It is not enough for you to state that the CCDHB has given YOU that information, and for you then to threaten (as you do) to close your file on this matter! I am the one who asked that question and I demand that you ask the CCDHB to give that information directly to ME. I realise that I am a mere male in New Zealand (of all places!), but -- as far as I know -- the Official Information Act 1982 still does allow men to request information as well! It is your job to make sure that I receive that information, even if I am not a female, like you.

I will also point out, in passing, that if it is adequate to treat male coditions in disparate departments such as Endocrine and Urology departments,as the CCDHB states, then it would also be adequate to treat female conditions in such separate departments. Having a dedicated Andrology department would have the benefit of assisting in the discovery, prevention and treatment of male conditions that are possibly in fact not properly treated in separate departments. The fact that Gynecology is a specialist department at the CCDHB, while Andrology is not, is a clear indication the male doctors, bureaucrats and politicians have always treated women better than they have treated men, and that female doctors, bureaucrats and politicians are increasing the disparity between the treatment of men and women.

2) As regards Family Violence, I now accept that the CCDHB has -- indirectly -- answered my question, by referring me to the Central Government guidelines. However, it would have been more honest of the CCDHB to have directly answered my question as follows:

"We do not have any plans to screen both male and female Accident and Emergency patients on an equal basis for having been victims of domestic violence, because the Central Government does not have any plans to do so either."

This is because women are vicious liars and constantly tell lies about being in favour of equality between men and women, while actually increasing the oppression of men that already existed before the rise of Feminism. Since increased testosterone levels has been proved to reduce lying in men (see http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046774), it is clear that women's lying is due to their insufficient testosterone, relative to men. Women lie in their roles as academics, journalists, perpetrators of family violence, police officers and judges, etc. and should therefore be barred from employment, voting or being witnesses in court cases.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

Quite promptly, I received the following reply from the Ombudsman:

See also:

• Medicines for Men in the New Zealand Temple to Women

• Funding for Male and Female Medications

• Discrimination and Corruption by Ashley Bloomfield

• Kiwi Women's Conspiracy to Suppress, Outnumber and Kill Off Men

• Andrology and Discrimination Against Men

• Decisions about death versus incontinence/impotence

• Female Supremacism in Medicine

• Gendercide by Neglect of Men's Health

• International Pro-Male Association letter to the World Health Organization

• Men's Health in New Zealand

• Men's Health Week and Cancer Research

• Prostate Cancer Screening

• Victims that “nobody is interested in”

• Wellington Hospital's discrimination against men

• Why is Annette King like Sadam Hussein ?