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

I suspect that some TRAs are really rather worried about this ending up in court, regardless of the outcome, and want to prepare the ground by introducing the idea that Tulip consented and new exactly what he was getting into.

If it is shown that these surgeries are harmful, and they are stopped that's another hit against the gender religion.

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

Ta dah!! I give you HM Courts and Tribunals service.

This is what happened to me-

Asked at 34 weeks pregnant did I want sterilisation at time of CS - I stated NO which was recorded in capitals in notes.
i was planning to have a mirena and told them this -also recorded.

2 weeks later I was v v ill (severe UTI which affected my thinking I was confused as it was so bad). As an inpatient on a DAILY basis I was told I should have sterilisation- bullied basically.
NOT given any literature or facts about the procedure.
NOT given info re alternatives
NO suggestion about vasectomy for my partner.

I was really Ill and they kept harassing me. The night before delirious with tiredness I signed and when it was done I regretted it immediately I was only 30.

The lack of info was so bad I didn’t even know which type of sterilisation I’d had till 18 months later

No solicitors would touch the case and said I had signed the form so nothing they could do

You make an excellent point! There are some things we just don't do even if we can. Some interventions can never win in a cost/benefit analysis.

What this case should highlight, and is what has been revealed to happen at the Tavistock gender identity clinic is a (deliberate) failure to look at comorbidities in patients.

There are memes (insensitive, but true) about doctors refusing to perform liposuction on someone with anorexia, doctors refusing to chop off the leg of someone with body dysmorpia. But gender dysmorphia (particularly those with autism, extreme trauma, internalised homophobia), no questions asked, straight to medication and surgery.

There is a push by TRAs to remove safeguards and this is the result.

It is a failing by the NHS.

I suspect that some TRAs are really rather worried about this ending up in court, regardless of the outcome, and want to prepare the ground by introducing the idea that Tulip consented and new exactly what he was getting into.

I'm not sure that's a very strong argument in their favour though.

If Tulip, an adult who consented and knew exactly what he was getting into, now regrets it, that's all the more reason to exercise greater caution before doing these surgeries, isn't it?

Well I never!

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.

I think that's kind of where I come from.

Either Tullip's outcome means the surgery was done really badly, in which case he's got a case for negligence.

Or it was a possible outcome. In which case the consent process needed to be really robust. Not just the list of risks in that leaflet, but a discussion of the evidence-based likelyhood of them occuring, plus the implications of that for Tullip as an individual.

Or this is an expected outcome. In which case this surgery is so risky that it should not have been offered, because the risks of surgery outweigh the benefits to the extent it should not be on the table.

I don't have enough knowledge of these surgeries to know which of these is the case.

(I know there are surgeries with awful outcomes, or high risk of fatality, which go ahead anyway. But they're done in the context of conditions where the risks of doing nothing are even higher. I've yet to be convinced that that is remotely the case here.)

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

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.

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. 💐

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

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.

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

😃

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.

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

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.

(Note, I'm making up the figures and details - I have no idea. So don't take that as medical advice!)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Because the NHS has more money?

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