Very distressing account of aftermath of 'Yeet the teets' surgeon's work

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

This is very disturbing indeed. How can a US surgeon do this and not be whatever their equivalent is of struck off? (Be aware, there are some very graphic images here, but towards the end.) To me as a layperson it appears that SG is extremely fortunate this patient didn't die. One revelation here is that she has opted out of medical malpractice insurance, which appears to mean she can't be sued. What? How does that even work?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1593617859804119040.html

Very few people are capable of remaining grounded when given power. Power and money corrupt. We shouldn't really be surprised when the power a person has over in this case vulnerable teens and young adults, leads to extreme , erratic and selfish behaviour.

Everyone looks up to drs. They are highly trained, intelligent, better than the rest of us below them who can't change lives with a scalpel.

But ultimately they are just people. Like the rest of us they are good bad and everything in between. The question isn't really why does she do it, we know this already . Power corrupts. The real question is why do we as society continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Why do we expect each Dr to be different somehow. Why do we blindingly trust those who claim to be able to help us , not to hurt us despite knowing that in another circumstances that would not end well.

People are peole. Drs lawyers politicians, presidents there are no exceptions. They are no better equipped to deal with money and power than anyone else. Why do we expect different outcomes. The word for repeating the same mistakes expecting different outcomes is insanity. I mean we are probably all.insane now.

Everyone looks up to drs. They are highly trained, intelligent, better than the rest of us below them who can't change lives with a scalpel.

I think there’s a lot of truth in that and it’s a well-known trope, probably based on truth, that surgeons are often egotistical. But another thing I’ve pondered is that the type of person to get caught up in gender ideology - generally lefty, social-justice bashing, self-perceived as hugely progressive - would just a few years ago have also been suspicious of the medical establishment and tend not to trust “conventional medicine” and see it as a scam or conspiracy to sell drugs or just not have the patient’s best interests at heart. Now, because this “progressive” trend has a big medical element, there’s no suspeicion even when maybe there should be, that unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and private surgeons have a lot to gain from this.

I also don't feel that this faith in it all is genuine. If it was there would be no need for the validation people seek.

I think actually people are incredibly insecure about the decision because why else would you need to bully everyone into going along with it all.

Take chemo. You could have 3 people with the same cancer. Each making a different decision as to the course of treatment. One person's choice to have no treatment is not an indication that the other 2 people are wrong. Its just what they want .

But here we have people who are being left septic. Urinating into a bag or unable to raise their arms above their heads or having their nipples turn black and drop off and still they are online pledging their allegiance to surgery that nearly killed them and encouraging others to do so.

I think if you were confident in hour choices then you'd not need to to be so needy and desperate to have it validated. Its basically misery loves company .

Its easy here to blame Dr Gallagher. But MB botched JJs surgery. Theres a sr in the US isn't there that has 18 pending law suits? ( F2M surgeries seem to have much higher complication rates)

How many do there need to be until someone thinks to themselves that maybe its not the dr. Maybe just maybe its the surgery. Maybe its just experimental, difficult, the expectations are unrealistic etc

Thanks for posting this, interesting on quite a few points.
The level of maximum awards covered sounds surprisingly low to me.
People who sue the NHS can get staggeringly high awards in some instances, maternity being the single biggest liability sector and for a brain damaged child who will need round the clock care for life the payouts are huge.

I note that doctors who don't have insurance are meant to post a sign in their office. I wonder if Scythe does this, though I don't suppose patients take much notice even if it is.
The regulation of accountability of Drs in USA seems mad, they can get away with anything it seems. The surgeon who operated on Scott Newgent (forgotten his name) has had loads of claims against him but I think he just moved to another state.

This is a very good point, scully. How 'successful' can procedures be when they are based on trying to achieve the impossible, and operating on previously healthy bodies to try and address issues of identity or dysphoria?

I had a good look on Dr Gallagher's website, there's certainly nothing on there to say so. But it is really rather scant on information, tbh. Hastily cobbled together fluffy copy writing. Quite shockingly sloppy, in fact, given she's supposed to be a medical professional.

Its easy here to blame Dr Gallagher. But MB botched JJs surgery. Theres a sr in the US isn't there that has 18 pending law suits? ( F2M surgeries seem to have much higher complication rates)

How many do there need to be until someone thinks to themselves that maybe its not the dr. Maybe just maybe its the surgery. Maybe its just experimental, difficult, the expectations are unrealistic etc

I definitely agree the surgery has high complication rates and a lot of awful-sounding outcomes like incontinence, excruciating phantom pain etc. but this patient seemed to take that on board and discussed complications beforehand, with the mention of SG saying that “no drain” reduced the risk and another surgeon disagreeing. I agree this high compilation and failure rate is a huge issue in itself, especially when people are being sold a dream of feeling wonderful and complete in some “true” new version of their body/self.

but OTOH all surgery can have complications - and the complaint of this patient is that SG didn’t care, downplayed the risks and actual problems that resulted, and gaslighted the patient that it was all normal and fine, in a situation where they actually could have died. That’s unacceptable aside from the general question mark over this kind of surgery.

I mean you can have experimental, risky surgery in other fields too - but you would always expect them to check for and help with complications.

Regarding "bottom surgery" (FtM) which is known to have a very high complication rate NHS England are funding a new service at Chelsea and Westminster hospital. The hospital plan includes provision of a whole time Tissue Viability Nurse. TVNs specialise in wounds that aren't healing, infections, fistulas, ulcers, pressure sores.
It's almost as if they know this highly complex surgery is likely to cause problems. And of course, thanks to NHS Resolution when patients have regrets or are unhappy with the results they will be able to sue and no doubt get a big payout.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/nhsserviceeforprovisionnof_mas

I guess for the most part most surgery one would hope was necessary. Experimental procedures are usually reserved for when there is no other choice as the patient perhaps doesn't qualify for or is unable for medical reasons to have something done the " usual way ". Out of options so to speak. Although these procedures don't always result in a positive outcome one hopes they learn from the because they have to.

I'm.wondering if that incentive is missing when it comes to what most would deem non essential , optional surgeries. Theres more of a " well i did what you asked for and told you it was Experimental " attitude.

With regards to the patient having had it explained to them. I personally would argue that anyone prepared to risk disability, incontinence and death for something non life saving , non essential, cosmetic and unnecessary if we are supposed to simultaneously believe that anyone can make a declaration of a gender identity and be accepted as that identity regardless of having no social or medical interventions, is clearly not able to consent. Because its my opinion at least that its effectively self harm/suicide through surgeons and they shouldn't be deemed to have capacity. But thats a different discussion I suppose.

Yes, and still state "transition is a beautiful process". Looks like horrendous torture to me

What's notable about Gallagher is the clever/cynical marketing campaign, advertising these services all over TikTok.

She will have made an absolute FORTUNE out of exploiting vulnerable children/young adults. And doesn't seem to give two shits about the consequences if it goes wrong.

She will have made an absolute FORTUNE out of exploiting vulnerable children/young adults. And doesn't seem to give two shits about the consequences if it goes wrong

She doesn't need to give a shit though does she. If she takes patients no one else will she can botch it and be as uncaring as she likes. They have no choice but to use her and then go back to get complications " fixed"

Tras will deal with those who disagree and then her victim status keeps the patients coming to.

Medics in areas unrelated to this should be paying horrified attention.

When the implications of this stuff fully hits, it's going to impact perceptions of the profession much more widely.

If one branch of medicine throws out the Hippocratic oath in pursuit of ideology and profit, then how does anyone know this won't become the norm?

Yes, I have often wondered this about Gallagher too? Whats her motivation, is it just the money or does she actually believe she is helping these girls and young women? Or something else? The power?

The money and the power? I can't help thinking of Harold Shipman, and it's clear he got some kind of kick out of killing healthy patients. Clearly Dr Gallagher is making an enormous amount of money from performing unnecessary surgery, and quite clearly she doesn't care about the harm she's doing. But more than that, she seems to revel in it. It's as if she enjoys removing the breasts from perfectly healthy young women and leaving them scarred and mutilated.

What kind of society allows someone like that to continue practising?

This. ⬆️

100%. As if there haven’t already been scandals in other areas. And with the Canada euthanasia debacle, I think medics could find themselves with a huge confidence problem.

Agree completely. What a thrill - knowing you have fooled everyone and will always be seen as a hero / victim no matter what.

These poor girls think of her as their friend and confidante. That stick on smile and those crazy eyes. Chills the blood.

It always interests me that people seem to be so invested in seeing doctors and nurses as saints - particularly in the UK where we have this huge reverence for the NHS. And yet history should show us that medics can be capable of doing enormous and deliberate harm. Look at Nazi doctors carrying out experiments in the concentration camps for obvious examples, but there are many others. We just seem unwilling to learn.

I don't see how the fact that other doctors also botch these surgeries mitigates Gallagher's blame. Rather it should have made her more cautious.

I didnt say that to insinuate she should he given any kind of free pass. Just the more individual drs there are to blame the more excuses etc people have to either carry on recommending surgeries by someone else even though the surgeries are hugely problematic regardless if who does them. And because I feel that any negative press also seems to have the unwanted side effect of creating enough sympathy that " transphobes" are to blame as opposed to the medical vultures preying on the vulnerable.

No one seems to be prepared to stop and think for a second

I think maybe it's in part because we do know that there can be evil people like this, that we need to emphasize the moral element of the practice of medicine.

You don't get people to take an oath for something unless you want them to think about and acknowledge that there is a special responsibility required.

Surely insurance should be mandatory for all doctors? Amazed they would be allowed to work without one.