Rats deserting the sinking ship?

So it's claimed the doctor couldn't get theatre time in hospitals, he previously was suspended after really dodgy surgery and he has now gone off on a medical but is unable to pay anyone.

Sounds like the reality is hospitals went "no fucking way" are we justifying him theatre time when he's a risk of having a bunch of law suits after him (hell who is doing the repair work for the botch jobs he does), insurance dropped a bollocks and say "no fucking way", he then took all the money left in the business out of it and has probably done a bunk to somewhere sunny (and out of jurisdiction for being sued). That also leaves the poor patients who he's butchered up shit creek as the company going under means they can't have compo claims against it. Chances are he'll phoneix somewhere else doing exactly the same abroad and offer his services to all the poor bastards he had on his waiting list.

I don't for a second believe he's ill.

The DM is overall poisonous. I don't consider myself very actively minority rights focused, but the amount of nasty whistle blowing on certain groups (muslims, black people, poor working class, people on benefits) is hard to ignore. But I too, note it as one of the only newspapers to keep it's opinion board anonymous and going even underneath controversial stories unlike The Guardian et al. It also kept that board running throughout Covid. I always say this is why, as bad as they are, you do need both your ridiculously liberal, virtue-signalling lefty and cold sympathy, rich-class-preserving right-leaning newpapers. They have a function of maintaining a dysfunctional balance if things tip too far in one direction. It's not that way by accident.

The more I hear about the medical aspects the more queasy I feel.

I've read a lot about WW2, and the only book I couldn't get even halfway through the introduction was an account written by a Hungarian doctor of being forced to assist in the medical experiments in the camps. Beyond all the other awfulness that went on in that period, that was the thing that just shook me to the core, gave me nightmares and lessened my interest in the subject. In probably not even 20 pages of a book's introduction ! That's how disturbing unwarranted and unproven medical intervention is.

Actually I think clicking on the daily Mail links is only fair as they are doing the research and publishing these articles, the DM deserves to make a bit of cash off the back of being on the right side of history

Who's saying that though?
Him?
Thee with a license to print medical notes?

I'm sure money is part of it, but probably not the whole story. There are plenty of surgeons involved in transgender medicine who are not doing it privately, so they don't make any additional money - they do it on the NHS or their country's equivalent, so get their normal salary, whether they do transgender work on not.

I think that, for most surgeons, the enjoyment and challenge of working on something new, especially something that supposedly completely transforms a person, is very appealing. Most put this enjoyment to benign ends, but not all.

Actually apparently he had to take urgent medical leave

I don't think for one second that he actually believes this. He is just a grifter who knows the right things to say to bring the unwell and deluded flocking to his door, waving handfuls of cash at him.

He wouldn't be the first surgeon who loved money more than ethics.

Might it be an insurance issue I wonder? Insurance companies tend to see which way the wind is blowing, and I guess a "maverick" surgeon like this might be an insurance risk - maybe he couldn't afford / couldn't get insurance?

He sounds like a fucking lunatic. And one that doesn't actually understand the inner workings of the human body. Did he even study medicine or did he read Mary Shelley for inspiration and get a certificate to practice medicine off the dark web 🤯

When I read The Island of Doctor Moreau, I was horrified and taken aback at the nature of what can only be described as sadistic violence inflicted on the victims by Dr Moreau and Well’s graphic language describing it. Written in 1896; but now it seems it was tragically prescient writing.

'There are clearly anatomical boundaries when it comes to trans women but these are problems that I believe can be surmounted and the transplant into a trans-female is essentially identical to that of a cis-female.'

How deluded or corrupt does a surgeon have to be to make that statement? They really seem to have siloed thinking that pregnancy is only about a uterus. How the fuck is he thinking he can jury-rig or transplant an endocrine system to monitor foetal development with naturally formed hormones and components? Or is he simply thinking a human is an engineering project that can be built with only artificial components with no adverse impact? FFS.

Also, bear in mind that Inglefield us a surgeon and not a lawyer, so I wouldn't pay too much heed to his view that it would be illegal to refuse to implant a uterus into a tw.

He has no idea, nor do I. It'd go to court, I expect, with all of us fighting it tooth & nail.

He is also an exponent of womb transplants, claiming the contentious procedure is 'essentially identical' to that of 'cis-women' – females born in that gender.
Last year Mr Inglefield said: 'This pioneering birth is extremely important for any trans female who would like to carry her own child.
'Because once the medical community accept this as a treatment for cis-women with uterine infertility, such as the congenital absence of a womb, then it would be illegal to deny a trans-female who has completed her transition.
'There are clearly anatomical boundaries when it comes to trans women but these are problems that I believe can be surmounted and the transplant into a trans-female is essentially identical to that of a cis-female.'

He's a surgeon who doesn't live in reality. I'm not surprised he ended up ruining a patient's eyesight. Ego so huge he thinks he can work miracles and that attitude is likely to result in misplaced confidence whilst undertaking procedures.

Thanks, I'd missed that element of the JR. Plastic surgeons try to force the NHS to pay them for care.

Right side if history, my arse.

Thanks for the explanation, Miss Lucy.

The DM article says the staff at the clinic were made redundant the day before pay day. There was no money to pay them. If he was paying to use a hospital's facilities, then he'd presumably have no money to fund that either. And there'd be no point in having a consultation with a surgeon who couldn't carry out the surgery.

I saw something about this on twitter last week a ftm was really upset because her mastectomy was supposed to be done this week and the correspondence from the Dr basically blamed the hospital that he operates in, saying it had cancelled all his surveys and he was trying to find somewhere else that he could operate. I guess that he couldn't find anywhere else.
My question is why did the hospital stop this dr operating in their hospital when he will have been paying them to use their surgical facilities and private post surgical rooms 🤔

Maya pointed out on twitter another element in this lost income from the NHS:

"This is the clinic whose brand ambassador Eva Echo brought a Judicial Review against NHS (supported by the Good Law Project). If won it would have led to NHS having to commission more.

Guess they were banking on it."

This was the case that failed appeal in September:
https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/court-finds-waiting-times-for-gender-identity-health-services-that-breach-nhs-targets-give-rise-to-no-legal-remedy#:~:text=A%20group%20of%20claimants%20consisting,that%20these%20delays%20were%20unlawful.

This was in fact one of the Good Law Projects scam cases which are pretty much doomed from the outset [according to honest lawyers] but meant Joly Fox killer always gets paid.

Is it odd for one surgeon to do both mastectomies and FFS? I'm not at all sure it sounds like a good idea.

It would be very unusual these days for a surgeon to do mastectomies for cancer as well as facial surgery, but plastic surgeons do do breast reconstructions. Removing non-cancerous breast tissue is probably within a plastic surgeon's skill-set, as it's not really that different from other forms of plastic surgery. So I wouldn't say this is a huge red flag, though I'm not a surgeon - surgeons might disagree.

I would say that live-streaming your ops, even with full consent and if you're the best surgeon on Earth, is asking to be sued. * *

There’s nothing on the Gazette, which is much more up to date than Companies House. I’d be interested to see the form of liquidation - voluntary, forced by creditors or enforced by the Official Receiver (the insolvency practitioner of last resort when a company has no funds left to pay anyone else). But there isn’t a formal notice or an announcement of the appointment of a liquidator.

Hmm.

If I'm reading this correctly, Inglefield (who is listed as a consultant cosmetic surgeon at Companies House) performed mastectomies and also facial feminisation surgery, one of the latter cases resulting in him being suspended for one month..

Is it odd for one surgeon to do both mastectomies and FFS? I'm not at all sure it sounds like a good idea.

Christopher Inglefield, had previously been warned by the General Medical Council for not obtaining consent forms from patients. In 2016, Dr Inglefield was given a 5 year written warning for repeated failure to properly complete surgical consent forms. He failed to record details & made revisions forms that weren't countersigned by the patient, who had a series of cosmetic breast procedures.

All this makes me think this guy is very vulnerable to law suits. Whether he was being sued and he was ducking out before he loses a case or if there is some other illegal activity he is trying to escape from who knows,

The clinic is still listed on Companies House website, with Inglefield showing as 'Active', although I imagine if takes time for the website to be updated.

This is very interesting.