What you all said was coming

[Pippinbird]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10947483/Anguish-young-man-sex-organs-removed-NHS-regretted-day-SUES-NHS

yes but you have read HIS version of it - you know lots of stuff but still not the actual facts as to dates of consults, doctors seen etc etc ....

@Motorina and @OvaHere yep!

It isn't 'capacity' that is the issue here. It's the lack of adequate pre-surgery intervention: counselling, density of information passed to the individual, time given for discussion, debate, thought processes, support to fully engage with the dysphoria and the realities of surgical intervention, and then the surgery itself.

All of which Stonewall etc want to make illegal, labelled as 'conversion therapy'

the trans surgeries subreddits are full of young people posting their despair and frustration that transition has worked out badly for them. Their posts are either removed, acuused of transphobia or they are gaslit that there's nothing wrong with their surgical results and that their pain isn't real.

Until the denail stops, nothing will change. However - if the NHS is henceforth less cavalier about using my taxes to transition mentally ill young people, then that's a win imho.

This.

Thanks @Motorina that explains it a bit further and I agree with you. I also don't think this surgery is a good idea full stop, in a similar way to the vaginal mesh surgery that everyone though was a miracle fix but turned out to be a bad idea.

What is happening with vulnerable adults and GI treatments does feed into the wider legislation and conversations about capacity. It's not as standalone as it first seems.

@EggRollsForever I don't know him. But I do have more than a passing knowledge of the procedures he went through. And they are not adequate.

In the 30+ years I have been involved in supporting individuals having such operations that has always been the case and in recent years the lack of time taken, the deliberate slowing down and in depth discussion of all issues has been even further reduced.

I know enough to know that he has a point that needs to be made, out loud and very publicly. Trans surgery comes with a price that many are not equipped to pay.

I think the fact that there are people who had whatever counselling is available, then, as adults, consented to getting this surgery, and now regret their decision should be a warning to the NHS and all other healthcare systems.

It just goes to show that even adult patients who appear absolutely sure that this is what they want don't necessarily understand the consequences of their decision.

Doctors should have these cases at the forefront of their minds every single time they are weighing up whether to prescribe hormones or approve irreversible surgery to someone. How can they be sure that the person in front of them isn't the next Tullip or Keira Bell?

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist yes! Yes, this exactly!

@OvaHere yes, I thought about referencing the vaginal mesh issue, but realised I didn't know enough about it. I think it's a really good analogy - no doubt at all those women had capacity and consented, but the surgery was a disaster for them as a group because it was bad surgery and, as such, is I think no longer offered.

I think we will in the future realise that offering these surgeries to distressed young people to manage their distress is similarly bad care. Not because of capacity, but because it's bad care. Unfortunately it's those young people who will end up suffering for it.

If he has commenced legal action, surely that information is in the public domain and journalists have the right to report on it. Similarly, his Twitter thread is publicly available.

I have every sympathy with his predicament, but I'm not sure what the Times has done wrong here.

This young man may have been judged to have the mental capacity to consent to such an extreme operation but he clearly didn't understand at all what was involved and how it would impact on his body and his life.

It does make one wonder how many more people in similar situations are going to come forward in the future.

Whilst this sort of surgery does, no doubt, help some people, there is a very great risk that the problem it's 'helping' is based in the patient's mental ill health and will at some future date be massively regretted.

And certainly, with young people and children who are started on hormones to block puberty, you have to question the agenda of the adults around them.

I can't help feeling that sometimes, just because you can do something, it's not always the best thing to do.

How can that be the actual description? Most of those are not "complications" of the surgery, they are exactly what will happen by the design of the surgery. You WILL have loss of sexual function, you WILL have loss of sensation, you will almost certainly have dissatisfaction with the appearence.

And the terminology...you can't have a vaginal prolapse because its not a vagina.

Agree with all this. I do think though because of what myself and Motorina mentioned, in Tulips case and any other similar suits brought the capacity argument is going to be a difficult one to tackle.

Clearly he has a number of ways he can come at this though and I don't imagine the lawyers would have taken it on if they didn't believe it to be a winnable case.

Personally I think there should be extreme caution exercised where the person is vulnerable in any way.

By vulnerable I mean things like autism, mental health issues, trauma in the past, being in care, having any special needs, being bullied etc etc.

Also an aspect of therapy should challenge WHY people feel a certain gender, how long it has lasted, how did it come about etc. not just affirming how they feel. How is affirmation proper therapy?? Therapists challenge how you feel constantly and encourage you to do the same.

And then there should be a very very long waiting list. Like 5 or more years. To give people time to change their mind.

Maybe even a court order should be required to proceed? The individual wanting the surgery must petition the court and a judge decide whether or not it's the right thing to do given the circumstances. Might not work in practice, just an idea.

That link is truly terrifying to read.

I really feel for this man, the widespread use of these surgeries is still so new that the full picture on long term outcomes is still probably not there in the research literature. I’m sure he was warned but people just trust that institutions like the NHS wouldn’t do these surgeries unless they were pretty low risk. It’s such a tough one, ironically trans activists had probably been too successful at advocating for surgery to be a norm in the treatment of gender dysphoria, but now a new norm among trans identified people is to not be so quick to get bottom surgery. A few years ago this sort of surgery was pretty intrinsic to what being a trans woman meant, if it had been a few years later he may not have gone that route at all.

Lack of detail from medical professionals

this mainly

and websites full of people who haven’t had the fucking surgery pretending that they have and that theyve had no problems

and it being transphobic for anyone to say it might not be a good idea

and pig ignorant cheerleaders (allies) cheering them on

I think it's difficult for us to imagine the pressure that he was placed under to have this surgery by ill-informed gender ideologists. Social media is full of people pretending that their genital surgery was a success. Sadly, women like TT Exulansic who have the medical expertise to shine a spotlight on how often it goes wrong are quickly silenced.
People who have been castrated are often frightened of being seen as transphobic or ungrateful if they admit to any negative experiences from the surgery - Jazz Jennings is a prime example of someone who was told their mental health would improve but is now desperately unhappy. And this is compounded by the fact that people are understandably embarrassed to talk about the reality of problems like the type of incontinence that is a very common result of this surgery.
As the article says:

"In the tweets, he describes how the operation has left him struggling to relieve himself. ‘It takes me about 10 minutes to empty my bladder. It is extremely slow, painful, and because it dribbles... it will then go all over the entire area, leaving me soaking.
‘I find moments later my underwear is wet. It slowly drips out for more than an hour. I never knew that I would risk smelling of p* everywhere I go.’
I think he is very brave to be so honest about his experiences.

Hi MishyJDI, I don't recognise the study you quoted and now can't find your reference to check if it was a statistically valid study. The only statistically valid study I know of (don't have reference to hand but was done in Netherlands I believe) found that levels of suicidality amongst patients rose slightly after their gender reassignment surgery.

Given that the stated objective amongst the most vocal proponents of SRS is to reduce suicidality, it's a failure on that basis based on the one study done so far.

Asking patients if they feel 'regret' is a fool's game because the peer pressure within trans communities to keep quiet about regrets is so strong (with many detransitioners and dissatisfied, but still trans, patients discussing this).

That is why surgeries normally have objectively defined surgical outcomes by which they are deemed a success, in the UK this is governed by NICE. One of the many areas of concern around SRS is that these agreed outcomes do not exist. So suicidality is informally used in some countries instead (no idea what the UK does). On the basis of the one extant study, the surgery fails to clear this bar.

and websites full of people who haven’t had the fucking surgery pretending that they have and that theyve had no problems

Or those who have had the surgery either being silenced, or downplaying their complications.

the widespread use of these surgeries is still so new that the full picture on long term outcomes is still probably not there in the research literature

I quality-rate every procedure I do. I ask every patient for feedback. I could tell you that in 2017/18, my success rate was blah, and patient satisfaction was blah. And every year since. Both for my team and me as an individual.

It really really should be possible for these surgeons to say, "I do this many of these a year. At six month review, this percentage report incontinence." If the surgical teams wanted that information to be available then it very easily could be.

I of course don't know what Tullip was told but, if that sort of information wasn't, then I question the robustness of the consent.

"The money" is only an issue if he wins.

If he wins this would mean that it has been proven that the NHS acted unlawfully/unethically in removing the genitals of a mentally ill person.

If the NHS are proven to be unlawfully removing body parts from mentally ill people then that is something they deserve to be held accountable for.

However, this could turn out to be a benefit to the NHS in the long run. If it is deemed unlawful for these types of surgery to be carried out then they now have a solid reason for not doing it anymore and won't have to run the gauntlet of stonewall, mermaids, et al putting pressure on.

I’m also shocked by some of the callous posts here. I don’t recognise some of the user names and the names I do recognise tend to be more sympathetic so perhaps some posters are not as familiar with the background. Like the thread title says, this has been predicted to happen for years. I think the NHS, like many institutions, has been spineless in the face of activism from Stonewall (and others) and they need to be held accountable.

With any surgery, the risks are explained.

Even Veterinarians explain to owners about potential risks to their pet before an operation, EG, Spaying, that there could be a risk of urinary incontinence afterwards.

It seems that the NHS can't win!
Be sued if people aren't offered surgery to give them what they thought they wanted, or to be sued because he's not happy with the result.

What next, Men and women suing because a vasectomy or sterilisation made them infertile and they now want children after all?

Ok so still trying to get my head round a lot of terminology and stuff, but if gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, why are people saying this person was not mentally capable of making this decision?

What's needed is some kind of system where each side gets to tell their side of the story and show any evidence that backs up their claims, and someone impartial makes a decision on what is most likely to have happened and the decide if any kind of reparation is needed

Not sure about this - I was not counselled for a procedure once and was too unwell to give proper consent (I signed my name but was not in the right place to have done so) and not one solicitor would touch my case or help me. I don’t see this as any different except it’s a man who has been let down

I don't really agree with the reason for why he is suing to be honest. He could have researched this better, he could have asked questions, he could have said no. Maybe they didn't give him the right information, I know I probably wasn't before some surgery (but I didn't have much of a choice in having it and there were other options available to me after), but he could have researched himself, he had two years. I had days and realistically nothing but surgery would have helped. And not on forums with idiots posting, actual proper reliable research. If there isn't any, then you are taking a gamble, as you essentially are the research.

However they don't seem to have done a very good job, if that's all true about it taking him an hour to pee and it hurting. Surgery shouldn't be making basic things worse. I would assume a drop in sexual activity really, for a while at least but not being able to pee? That's pretty bad. He should take his case from that angle, probably got a better chance. They shouldn't have done that.