What you all said was coming

I understand why some, despite sympathising extensively with Tullip, think the nhs are not culpable. But if Tullip was capable of doing his research, so was the nhs. But instead they allowed themselves to be led by the nose by gender activist organisations such as stonewall. In recent years as a result of activism from 'GC' people and groups they have been forced to modify their website on a host of issues surrounding transition. I think their wholesale adoption of gender ideology is the big weakness in their case and even if they win, it will throw a load more sunlight on everything.

I have heard from staff who worked on that service that even after therapy etc, there was regret and complications. It wasn’t uncommon at all.

The thing is the NHS may - I don't know - have been offering such treatment for decades to Trans individuals without blowback

Yes it did, but to be a candidate for surgery, the patient had to have gone through extensive psychotherapy. That is why the old-fashioned transsexuals are often quite wise souls.

I don't think it is good enough to say "well the patient wanted it". Since when has the NHS operated on a system of self-diagnosis?

I posted earlier but have only just rtft and have to say I'm quite shocked at the lack of empathy for Tulip. Whether or not you believe Tulip had capacity to consent, or should have done more research, or got what he asked for, the truth is that there is no positive evidence base for these surgeries.

In my view, there is no place for these surgeries, especially not in the NHS which WE fund.

A lot of people Pps have talked about how we don't remove other healthy body parts. To that end, this (very long) article is FASCINATING

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/

Hewitt

I agree, the NHS should not be doing or funding this kind of surgery.

Why should tax payers be funding this? Many of them women who cannot get or expect any where near decent healthcare for medical issues that only affect or impact on women?

I have to say I do agree with what you're saying here. It shouldn't be getting done on the NHS at all. It is effectively ruining working body parts. True!

Can't really argue against that or I can't find one and frankly don't want to, I think I raised enough counters.

I can't even get decent thyroid treatment on the NHS, so I am baffled at the willingness to prescribe incredibly strong hormone treatment to healthy individuals and undertake such extreme surgeries on healthy bodies

Thank you for cementing why this is wrong in my mind. I was trying to get past all the counter-arguments I could bring up and others will say to me.

Because the NHS is right at the top of the hierarchy of gender ideology. It is pushing the ideology massively, both internally and also externally by its policies. It has been entirely captured by an extremely damaging ideology and is carrying out surgery that permanently deforms otherwise healthy bodies.

Well @LadyAnnabelsTapestries, my own view is that the NHS shouldn't be doing it at all. No doctor should, in fact.

They shouldn't be doing it for the same reason that they don't amputate the healthy limbs of patients with body integrity identity disorder or fit anorexic teenagers with gastric bands.

As for it being what the patient wants, what other medical procedures does the NHS do simply because patients want them? Even in cases where there is a clear benefit to the patient. If you want a breast reduction because you have severe back pain, or a tubal ligation because you definitely don't want any children in the future, or a hip replacement because you are in daily agony, or testing after a miscarriage, or IVF if you can't conceive. It definitely isn't a case of "you ask, you get".

In all other situations, you get the treatment the NHS believes is most appropriate, often within the limits of what your NHS trust can afford out of its meagre budget. Often this means people don't get treatment which is completely safe and would measurably improve their quality of life, because the budget won't stretch to it.

So why do different rules apply when it comes to prescribing risky hormone therapy and cutting off people's sex organs to treat a psychiatric condition they have diagnosed themselves?

That's a compelling argument that I'll have to shift through. On the face of it it is a good point.

But I am still not sure that because a person is effectively overtaken by an ideology, that this means the NHS is culpable for giving that person what they are asking for. i.e. the surgery itself. Surely that sits with the people grooming online.

Although you would have to push for it, I believe you can still get a breast implant surgery on the NHS if you are really flat chested or your breasts are uneven etc (I am not talking about in the case of reconstruction after cancer,) but most importantly part of the criteria for this is that not having the surgery is causing 'significant mental distress'. Which moves it from a cosmetic procedure you would have to fund privately, to an essential one.

How is the NHS supposed to know whether the severe mental anguish an adult presents with will improve or worsen after the procedure they've asked for or in 5, 10 or 20 years?

And what about other people getting other treatments done on the basis of mental distress?

Should the NHS not do any such procedures because of the risk that they cannot predict that the person may change their mind or their mental distress might get worse/naturally alleviate?

A significant number of women later regret their privately funded breast implant or Brazilian butt surgery or botox etc. They could say they felt pressured by societal expectations, pictures of celebrities online, forums and the overt sexualisation of women. Assuming the procedure is performed correctly, can they also claim they were mentally ill and sue ?

Why is the NHS especially culpable?

And more. The insurance companies (or at least the section of them that settles claims) will be less idealistic than some NHS managers.

I also expect It to have wider implications within the insurance industry. I forecast fewer rainbows.

Well, I thought it was quite an interesting insight into the history of transsexualism, but apparently it's inflammatory.

Do PM me if you are interested.

Apparently we're just womb carriers now.

I can understand why unhappy teens get pulled into the ideology but I just don't understand how entire organisations like the NHS are so captured by this? Particularly as we're constantly being told about staff shortages, lack of money, hugely long delays for diagnosis and treatment, the state of GPs etc. Not only are they spending £££ on preaching gender ideology internally, they are prescribing costly drugs, performing complex surgeries on healthy bodies and the fallout in the future is going to be SO expensive, even just in monetary terms. All of the lawsuits, corrective procedures, counselling, lifelong medication, dealing with scar tissue, chronic pain etc. etc. I just cannot fathom how anyone high up in the NHS is allowing this to happen while the rest of the NHS services are in dire straits. It is absolute madness.

mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1439851763704729600

51 Scottidh sixteen year olds have been referred to English hospitals for double mastectomies.

Haven't read the DM article, but I did read the Twitter thread when he first posted it. It's horrifying stuff. Have looked over the leaflet someone linked to way upthread. In addition to @Datun's excellent points above, that the NHS shouldn't be telling anyone they will end up with organs only some of the opposite sex can actually have - it annoys me intensely that being female is equated just with having breasts and a vagina, and the neovagina is put there solely for PIV sex. Having a female body is about so much more than the external bits a man gets familiar with from sex.

@LadyAnnabelsTapestries But you're thinking about it from the point of view of someone who hasn't been swallowed whole by this ideology.

People who are vulnerable to it will not be looking at the same parts of the Internet you imagine you would be looking at. They'll be looking at trans forums populated by true believers who will tell them not only that this surgery will cure their dysphoria, but also what to say to the doctors in order to get it.

And I'm willing to bet that once your Internet history has enough of this stuff in it, all your ads will be from the likes of stonewall and mermaids.

Do they perform these ops on under 18s in the NHS?

Like I said maybe 30 years ago all a person may have had access to was the Consultant's or surgeons opinion. But now in the age of internet the excuse that you had no other point of reference to make such a decision on a profoundly life-altering surgery is effectively moot.

Even if he had only received positive affirmation until the point of the surgery itself, you are briefed several times and usually weeks, if not months in advance of the surgery itself.

No one just turns up on the day for a surgery. He was not a child. Being a foolish and naive young adult is not the NHS fault I'm afraid.

If I walk into a tattoo parlour at say 22, and request my eyeballs be tattooed and my entire face, then later regret it because getting a decent job, a partner and fitting in society as a regular joe blogs is more difficult, is the tattoo artist at fault?

That study is from 2004! Long before the trans trend started capturing children and young people.

I hope the NHS is found liable because if they face legal consequences for performing these surgeries on apparently consenting adults, hopefully they'll think a lot more carefully about performing them on younger and more obviously vulnerable patients.

I don't think the NHS should be found culpable in this case.

This is not the same as a child effectively being give positive affirmation, then put on irreversible puberty blockers.

My understanding is this man was an adult at the time he made this decision.

Adults are allowed to make medical decisions that may not be in their best interests in terms of quality of life, for e.g. refusing chemo choosing another treatment option that is less harsh but also less effective. Taking an off label drug etc.

The thing is the NHS may - I don't know - have been offering such treatment for decades to Trans individuals without blowback, but they were a different cohort. Not this new SM influenced cohort.

Should they now be forced to pay out after an adult made the decision to go ahead with a surgery that they very likely had explained to them beforehand?

In my thirties I went for a straightforward hernia operation. The Consult suggested a mesh be inserted. I went and researched and then requested a mesh-free operation, as I had seen some people complaining about the troubles they experienced with the mesh folding or cutting into them. I didn't want those perfectly within a tolerable 2% risks. Nope.

The consult was annoyed and the surgeon wasn't happy and grimly kept saying, you'll be back here in 3 years because the hernia will come out again! It was clear he thought he was wasting his time.

But I chose what I chose.

I fail to believe in the age of internet that a surgery this complicated couldn't have been researched and wouldn't have been explained several times over.

The websites that are grooming such vulnerable people are the ones that should be sued. The web page hosts, the people encouraging them in forums.

The issue is it's multi factorial.

Not just the nhs, the messages come from all directions. Tullip has said that this was 100% internet driven.

But the nhs and their therapists are not challenging it the rhetoric and the ideology. They're not using science. They're using "wants" and the threats of suicide.

I think the rabbit hole needs to see some sunlight. This case may help.............