Trans men sue NHS over half built genitalia

[Justme56]

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2024.11.07-174004/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/07/trans-men-sue-nhs-over-half-built-genitalia" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2024.11.07-174004/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/07/trans-men-sue-nhs-over-half-built-genitalia/

TransActual's timeline is helpful.

https://transactual.org.uk/whats-happening-with-nhs-phallo-and-meta/

The one with the ambition to undertake uterine transplants into men?

Totally agree. The NHS should be for treating disease, reinstating function, reconstructing trauma sites and improving overall health, not taking normally functioning body parts and amputating them/flaying them/turning them inside out.

Unfortunately the NHS was compelled to provide MtF transgender genital operations by a court ruling and presumably FtM ones then have to be provided or it would be a sex discrimination situation!

Dunno what could be done to change the situation, presumably the courts would have to be involved again?

I can't understand how the NHS ever became involved in this in the first place. They say no to all sorts of things after all. And I think doing n surgery to create fake appendages for mentally unwell women who clearly need proper support would have been top of the list.

I don't know who is discussed elsewhere. Is it MD or RD who is the surgeon?

I've seen MD mentioned in re: uterine implants.

mentally unwell women who clearly need proper support would have been top of the list.

In general, there's a desperate need for adequate MH services of all of those who need them.

Blame the judiciary!

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114611/#:~:text=Three%20British%20transsexuals%20who%20were,was%20“unlawful%20and%20irrational.”

I expect it’s the same one - not many Serbian phalloplasty surgeons about!

genitalsurgerybelgrade.com

My gosh, I hadn't realised this. Thanks for sharing

Phalloplasty is probably the biggest gender medicine scandal of all, on a par with puberty blockers. It’s horrific. The r/phallo sub on Reddit is both horrific and eye opening. The general theme is always

“I’ve had

[list of extensive complications]

and I have had or need

[list of multiple procedures]

but I’m so happy I’m on my journey!”

It’s awful. No matter how awful the results are, no matter how terrible the outcomes, everyone claps their hands and cheers about how “amazing” it all is. It’s a constant cycle of reaffirmation of false beliefs, because no one ever says: “it looks terrible” or “maybe you should stop?”

It’s an absolute tragedy.

Just looked at that sub, @NotBadConsidering.

Wow. Just terrible.

Aren’t Chelsea and Westminster Hospital about to start offering these surgeries on the NHS? It’s hard to fathom how they can contemplate offering such surgeries on the NHS.

https://www.chelwest.nhs.uk/services/surgery/chelsea-centre-for-gender-surgery

It has to stop.
And people need to be immediately taken into mental health support systems to support them back to biological reality.

You can't change sex.

Such a tragedy. These poor mentally unwell young women being gaslit to believe these crude "creations" are real. Unforgiveable.

I had never seen an adult penis in real life until someone consented to have sex with me 😀 (was a very frustrated teenage girl!)

Do these young women actually know what they should be getting?

Blame the judiciary!

As a general point, what is the law around what the NHS has to fund? That link said it was unlawful for them not offer these operations, but the NHS makes decisions not to offer things all the time. Recently in the news was the drug that slowed Alzheimer's, and a new breast cancer drug I think, both rejected presumably due to cost vs evidence of benefit. But the link to the judgement said they couldn't not fund these operations because they are a "proper treatment for a recognised illness". How does that not apply to loads of things the NHS doesn't fund, including the drugs I've mentioned?

Horrific. The NHS apparently on its knees and using money basically to mutilate the mentally ill. This is where #bekind leads when no one has the capacity to think logically or stick to fundamental principles about Healthcare.

I'm wondering if my son should sue the NHS as he's been waiting for 2 years for firstly an actual diagnosis for mental health issues and now a further wait for treatment. ( not gender diysphoria).

The whole issue is a Frankenstein horror. No one should ever have healthy body parts removed on the NHS! This issue has been a well-publicised disaster in waiting for years. Every single person who wants 'gender-affirming surgery' should be made to watch the videos made by Ritchie Herron, a gay man who was convinced he was trans and had his penis and testicles removed - a surgery he massively regrets and he has now 'de-transitioned', but he has been left mutilated for life. It's an absolutely tragic story.

Recently in the news was the drug that slowed Alzheimer's, and a new breast cancer drug I think, both rejected presumably due to cost vs evidence of benefit.

Because they'd both been through a NICE technology appraisal to scrutinise the clinical and cost effectiveness and whether the price represents value for money for the NHS.

As above, this surgery has been declined for evaluation as part of a NICE interventional procedure programme. This is interesting because the interventional procedure programme looks at a number of things but doesn't comment on the clinical and cost effectiveness issue in the same way as the technology appraisal programme does. Interventional procedures draft guidance on the safety and efficacy of interventional procedures.

https://www.nice.org.uk/get-involved/meetings-in-public/interventional-procedures-advisory-committee

https://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance

On this one issue, Donald Trump is right.

NICE has various assessment programmes. This was suggested as a topic for review by the interventional proceedures programme. That programme assesses surgeries, but only new ones that are considered experimental - and this was judged to be an established procedure that falls outside the remit of the programme.

If NICE assesses adult gender care under the clinical guidelines programme, which has a much wider remit to look at all aspects of a condition - prevention, diagnosis and all the available medical and surgical procedures, they would be able to include phalloplasty in that review.

Yes, only the technology appraisals (assessments of individual drugs, or closely related groups of drugs, for a specific condition) have legal force that means the NHS must fund them.

Interventional proceedures guidance can specify that an operaton can only be done as part of a clinical trial, not done at all, or done without restrictions. But it can't force the NHS to do it.

Clinical guidelines set out best practices for what can happen, but again can't enforce them. If a doctor or hospital goes against them they'd need to be able to explain why in the event of a complaint, but the recommendations aren't mandatory.

Apart from the NICE technology appraisals I don't think there's anything that sets out exactly what treatments the NHS must offer. It simply wouldn't be practical. For example there's a treatment my mum had a while ago - a 'proper treatment for a recognised illness' (and a real, diagnosable illnrss that can be seen on scans). The NHS doesn't offer it now because there was only 1 UK doctor who did it and he's retired. It's a niche specialty requiring dedicated equipment and nobody took over the service. They can't make somebody train.

Wrt being “proper treatment” I bet there is zero evidence that these “treatments” make any difference in terms of improving mental health and a lot of evidence that they turn physically healthy adults into unhealthy ones with lifelong medical issues.

Are there figures published on what ‘gender-affirming’ plastic surgery costs the NHS? Both to commission the butchery procedures (multiple for each patient) and then the inevitable interventions when the issues after ‘bottom’ surgery become apparent?

And if suicide rates are no different post-care, when controlled for pre-existing psychiatric conditions, then what’s the justification for us, (as taxpayers), shelling out for them?

I mean, I have some issues with (persistent after diagnosis) smokers getting lung transplants, or alcoholics (who continue drinking alcohol) getting livers. And I’m MUCH more on board with either of those than I am for what are, at best, cosmetic alterations.

Or the politicians enact a law that states they won’t be covered.

There are always ways to do these things, but it requires political will. And there’s not a chance that this Government will ever muster it.