[eesmith]

I believe you are basing this on the title.

The second line of the video clarifies she emailed "Britain's national healthcare provider 133 times, trying to get a doctor's appointment."

Her GP is not trained in trans medicine. She needed a referral to get treatment. Her first GP didn't do so, after several attempts. Her second (after she moved) was persuaded to do so.

Even then, the waiting list is decades long. Not the 18 weeks required by law.

That's when she started emailing, and contacting aNHS dministrators, "hundreds of hours spent doing this in my free time, just to get an appointment with a doctor" who can treat her.

Why do you doubt it's true?

[easytiger]

The bit that isn't true

Haranguing management staff isn't how you get an appointment. The system works on medical referrals.

There are 3-5 year waiting lists for kidney stone operations - something causing ongoing pain and high infection risk - and is indeed very routine - they can join the club.

Most people in need of what are frankly self indulgent procedures that doesn't affect their health should absolutely not be the priority for a health service already failing to meet duty of care to people with. The tavistock scandals are simply hijacking of a public entity too afraid to say no for fear of bad press.

Is the NHS fit for purpose? Mostly not in some very important areas. Why the subset of persons who want to make it about them is beyond me, it applies to all persons. Trust me. I know.

[l3uwin]

> self indulgent procedures that doesn't affect their health

Categorically false and an obviuosly bad-faith argument.

Surgery isn't the only step in trans healthcare, not all trans people seek medical transition, and intersex people need access to endocrinologists regardless of your ignorance. And even if the above wasn't true, transitioning lowers the suicide rate of trans youth significantly.

Yet here you are crusading for more dead kids. Shame on you.

[eesmith]

> The system works on medical referrals.

How long is it supposed to take for the GP to write a referral?

As described, just getting the referral took months.

The first GP said "come back in a month" and she would write the referral. Which is not part of the standard of care. The GP then said she would write a referral, and six months later hadn't yet done it.

And according to one recent survey, 14% of trans respondents said that their GPs refused to help them.

How does a referral system work if the GPs refuse to make referrals?

> There are 3-5 year waiting lists for kidney stone operations

That's 3-5 years after they were diagnosed, yes?

It did not take nearly 20 years see the doctor and get the diagnosis that they needed a kidney stone operation.

And that's the waiting list she was talking about - the waiting list to see the doctor.

Just like it said in the title; the one you thought wasn't true.

> frankly self indulgent procedures

Your frankly bigoted opinion is not backed by medical evidence.

[easytiger]

If you attend a gp they usually write a referral there and then or have a letter you can pick up at the end of the day/next day. In 100% of the 12 or so times I have got referrals that is what happened. Even gets printed off and a copy handed to me. If they don't there is usually a reason. I've also had GPs say I didn't need referrals (but I usually don't go expecting one). It is the GPs medical choice to not refer you if they don't see it necessary. They will usually always write the letter if you tell them you will do the desired medical pathway privately. They are more likely to gatekeep NHS resources as of course they will have to account for them. E.g. recent A&E referrals by GPS were being tracked by dinner A&E departments as lots of gps fob off patients to them.

A lot of the NHS is also just bad. Run badly and incompetent. I've had treatment follow ups go missing in the system. But, alas, I don't have a systemic discrimination pseudo complex to fall back on.

When you say refused to help them I presume you ask yourself why? And I presume your definition of the word refused is correct?

Lol. 20 years? What

[DanBC]

You're getting a lot wrong because you're focussing on regular referral from GP to secondary care, and not from GP to specialist commissioning.

> 20 years? What

This was the actual, not reported, wait list for Tavistock. The reported list was shorter because the way the NHS counts it meant that many patients were simply not counted.

[eesmith]

> If they don't there is usually a reason.

What if the reason is they think gender therapy is a "frankly self indulgent procedure"?

As you heard from the video, the first GP did not give a referral after more than seven months, and the second had to be persuaded.

And this appears to not be an isolated case.

> It is the GPs medical choice to not refer you if they don't see it necessary.

Addressed directly in the video - the NHS rules do NOT give the GP that choice:

] So when he said, "I'm sorry, I can't send you to the clinic," I pulled [the NHS rules] out, and I said, "Actually doctor, you not only can, you are required to."

A quick DDG search finds confirmation at https://www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/rcgp-policy-areas/transgender... saying (emphasis mine):

] The Royal College of GPs recognises that GPs are not experienced in treating and managing patients with gender dysphoria and trans health issues. Gender dysphoria and gender identity issues are not part of the GP curriculum or GP Specialty Training, and GPs are currently required to refer patients experiencing gender dysphoria to gender identity specialists for further assessment and treatment advice.

> And I presume your definition of the word refused is correct?

What about the video made it seem like "refused" was an incorrect term?

I guess that perhaps after waiting another 6 months the GP might have sent in the referral, so it wasn't a direct refusal. But, seriously? Is that your point?

Furthermore, she discussed how delays like this can be viewed as "Nonperformative speech", which "is how an institution can appear to be doing something about a problem whilst actually very deliberately doing nothing.". That's how it ties into the "Philosophy" part of "Philosophy Tube."

> Lol. 20 years? What

This was all addressed in the video. Quoting from it:

] Well at time of recording, the largest clinic in London has 11,407 patients on its waiting list. Last month they offered first appointments to 50. That means that if you were referred today, you will be waiting for 19 years. And that's not 19 years for healthcare, either. That's 19 years for a first appointment, .... That's actually better than it used to be. When I was referred, it was 26 years.

While I found the video very well put together, with superb references to Catch-22, you don't need to watch it to get the content. I went to https://www.downloadyoutubesubtitles.com/ , pasted in the YouTube URL, selected the British English closed captions, and used that for the above cut-and-paste.

[easytiger]

> As you heard from the video, the first GP did not give a referral after more than seven months, and the second had to be persuaded.

How do you know the referral was medically necessary? Just because someone gave in in the end doesn't mean it was a boolean decision.

Perhaps there is more to running the NHS than saying everyone who is demanding elective procedures should get them in 18 weeks. It would be lovely if it were true but i know people who, thanks to the NHS and its political football nature, have died or are dying or left to suffer for years in physical pain.

Obviously the real wider debate is why the NHS, which should be the most efficient possible organisation is in fact a horror show (if your demands are an infinitely scalable healthcare solution). When it was "founded", or rather when it appropriated the nation's existing medical infrastructure (GPs are still all private) the scope of treatment was . If you think <current year> sudden new demands such as trans services (practically unheard of 20, which were invented in the modern era thanks to innovation in medicine to allow indulgences unknown to human civilisation before the technology existed - i think resources can be better used. Private options are available as are used by others for similar things. The DDOSing on the NHS is bad enough.

Thanks for the https://www.downloadyoutubesubtitles.com/ tip. Useful.

[eesmith]

> How do you know the referral was medically necessary?

What does "medically necessary" mean to you? Does it include changing the gender identifier on your passport?

Quoting the video:

] Once you're in the medical system, you can also change the legal sex that is recorded on your birth certificate and your passport. In England, you cannot change either of those things without first obtaining a doctor's permission.

> Perhaps there is more to running the NHS than saying everyone who is demanding elective procedures should get them in 18 weeks.

Which has diddly-squat to do with the issue.

According to the NHS, gender dysphoria is a medical condition, and treatment is not viewed as an elective procedure. This has been the case since 1999, as the video points out:

] The diagnostic requirement is very baked into the NHS and British law. In 1999, there was a landmark legal case. A trust in Lancaster announced they weren't gonna fund transition anymore on the grounds that it was "merely cosmetic," and they were sued by three trans patients who said, actually, it was necessary to alleviate their gender identity disorder, as it was called at the time. The patients won, which meant that we have a right to free transition,

And according to the NHS Constitution, patients have a right to start care within 18 weeks of referral. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-start-co... .

Not 19 years.

> have died or are dying or left to suffer for years in physical pain.

Yes, it's tragic, and shouldn't happen.

But don't let that become the excuse that others must suffer as well.

> practically unheard of 20, which were invented in the modern era thanks to innovation in medicine to allow indulgences unknown to human civilisation before the technology existed - i think resources can be better used

We know you think transgender care is "frankly self indulgent procedures", so of course you would think that.

Your viewpoint is not backed by medical evidence nor British law.

Further, as the video points out, "if a cis woman goes through menopause, she can get oestrogen from her GP. If a trans woman wants it, we have to go to the gender clinic".

Why that disparity? Estrogen for feminizing hormone therapy is about as old as the NHS itself (eg, Christine Jorgensen in the 1950s), so you can hardly claim it was 'practically unheard of 20 [years ago]'.

And hormone therapy is cheap. Assuming https://www.fiscaltiger.com/the-cost-of-gender-transition/ is right, generic estradiol costs about $4/month and the anti-androgen spironolactone costs between $4 and $12 per month. And that's retail prices the US, not wholesale prices the NHS can get.

Not everyone wants gender affirming surgery. They still need to get a referral from the GP for hormone therapy, or to change their passport gender marker, and the waiting list is years long.