What you all said was coming

But the NHS should know their limitations and just refer people to private clinicians.

Unfortunately the private clinicians doing this in the UK are just as likely to botch things up.

I don't know the background to this protest outside St Peter's Andrology centre in London but it looks like someone was done serious harm.
Which may or may not be connected to St Peter's losing the NHS contract.

Hopefully it won't be the same surgeons operating in the new NHS centre being opened at Chelsea and Westminster hospital.

That's awful Penguin, so sorry for you and your child

And in this case, the blame lies elsewhere, or should do.

Perhaps the NHS should have been less gung-ho for gender identity ideology, without the evidence case that other treatment requires.

I don't think the NHS should be carrying out these surgeries at all. My disabled child has been waiting for surgery for three years and now can't walk properly due to the delay. I know women with chronic agonising pain from overly large breasts but they can't get surgery on the NHS. Why is the NHS mutilating healthy bodies when it can't even provide a basic essential service?

I think this is the only thing which will stop the NHS pushing and enabling this ideology so I am fully behind this challenge. As pp said, if this isn't a (mental) health condition there is no basis to treat it under the NHS. They can't have it all ways. Counselling only.

I absolutely agree. Surely there are much more important things the NHS should be spending its limited resources on?

But why is the full force of blame laid at the door of the NHS? This was a journey he made, with decisions along the way influenced mostly by a website that told him to transition quickly, and a childhood marked by fear of what his anti-gay parents would say if they found out. The NHS were at the end of this journey, performed the operation he gave his consent for and now he's angry and upset, and claims they've ruined his life. What about the bigoted parents, the fanatic website that swayed him completely?

I have sympathy for him in bucket-loads but I disagree with the allocation of blame. The NHS are always whipping-dogs for anything that goes wrong - there's always a backstory to these cases that sees people regretting lying on operating table. And in this case, the blame lies elsewhere, or should do.

Because the NHS has more money?

Also remember, we're only hearing his side of things. Not that I'm not sympathetic though.

Because the NHS should be able to spot stupidity and realise that this is not the correct cause of treatment.

Most tattoo parlours will refuse to serve drunk people.

The operation certainly sounds botched (I'm not sure if he's talked about having his urethra shortened multiple times).

I think that's why people go to Thailand for the surgery (which is cutting edge there). The NHS are not experts in it, and probably like a lot of their work, is basic (to save costs etc).

No doubt online forums will rave about the surgery (which is likely to have been done in Thailand) and not about the quality on the NHS.

Essentially I don't think the NHS is equipped for this. Privately it is dangerous because if you pay the money they won't ask many questions. But the NHS should know their limitations and just refer people to private clinicians.

The NHS spends about £500m a year on compensation, expect that to escalate with sex change regret.

i despair when stupid people make stupid decisions then blame everyone around them when they realise the stupidity of their actions.

I dont see why the NHS should bear the brunt of this.

I have complete sympathy for him. Although it's reasonable to ask what he thought would happen when he had his penis removed.

What interests me here is the principle of consent. This was discussed extensively at the time of Keira Bell's case, weighing up whether a young person had the understanding to consent to treatment. In this case it's an adult, but if the individual genuinely didn't understand the extent of their surgery and the possible risks, was consent correctly obtained?

Unfortunately Tulip being one of the first will bear the brunt of that sentiment.

Over time though, if as predicted the trickle becomes a wave then a tsunami then eventually I think it will be understand that this is much more insidious than an individual making what looks like a daft decision on the surface of it.

I don't think those commentators are able to grasp yet that this is a multi billion pound global medical industry. There are similarities to the opioid crisis and the first victims of that were treated in similar ways. Stupid junkies who should have known better than to take such strong meds, allow themselves to get addicted etc.

Years later we know better, we know how the Sackler company operated, how they targeted and captured physicians and medical bodies, put out dodgy studies and stats, used irresponsible advertising. All because it was insanely profitable and sold as yet another miracle cure.

As an example of what I mean by a robust discussion of risks, compare these two:

1. This surgery can cause incontinence.
2. About 25% of people having this surgery may have some level of urinary incontinence. This can mean that you need to go to the toilet much more frequently, with little warning. You might find that you continually leak urine. This will mean that you will need to wear pads in your underwear, and your underwear and clothing may be soaked with and smell of urine. It can make your genital area sore and inflammed. Post-surgery incontinence is unlikely to get better on its own. You may be offerred more surgery to treat this, or it may not be treatable, which means you will be incontinent for life.

The first is box-ticking. The second comes closer to informed consent.

Tullip's account certainly suggests that the latter wasn't offered. I guess it will be for that impartial decision making service @BordoisAgain thought up to decide.

Yes exactly this. What has this Frankenstein 'surgery ' got to do with health?

I think it’s completely wrong for the NHS to offer this surgery, and for groups to lobby to increase access to it.

I also think that unless Tulip was diagnosed with a lack of competence that it’s wrong to say that he does not bear most of the responsibility for requesting and receiving the procedure.

😃

The NHS does carry a lot of blame here. They of their own free choice brought in stonewall & mermaids and agreed with them that a man can become women & vice versa

not only that but they have been one of the most high profile (if not the most high profile) cheerleaders of gender ideology. They haven’t been dragged kicking & screaming, they’ve enthusiastically danced at the front of the line, high kicking as they went.

they have willingly created a culture that entirely supports gender ideology

they need to take a very very hard look at themselves

The NHS shouldn't be removing any organ or body part that is healthy and working as intended (well, it won't remove my fucking nuisance womb despite years of misery, because it claims there is nothing wrong with it).
Full stop.
If the desire to do this is so strong then pay for it privately.

Can't even pretend I feel sympathy. All I can think is ... natural consequences!

This is a new Thalidomide scandal coming down the track. The lawyers will be busy for many years. I have enormous respect for ppl like Sinead Watson and Tullip who have courage I can only envy. 💐

It's a horrific read, clearly the surgery wasn't done well.

But as for the not being ready, I don't agree.

We all make choices. Even going onto the operating table, he had the ability to say No.

Yes, I’m sure you’re right, plus, as I think someone pointed out already, it has the benefit of making FWR look bad to some readers too