I had not intended to post further but now ought to.
If I reported the matter incorrectly then I am embarrassed to have done so but glad to be corrected. It is important that information is accurate.
I did stress the" IF
I remember correctly."
I did not follow any further development of the story. The last I heard of it was that Dr Curtis had been put under supervision whilst the GMC investigated - that is a definite and the tale is in the archives here somewhere.
If he was subsequently exonerated, then I did not hear of it. If the allegations were made by CX then it does sound more like simple harassment.
- I will go back and insert a warning that my statement is apparently inaccurate (rather than deleting it which would make nonsense of many following remarks)
- I truly have no personal grudge against the man, I believed I was legitimately correcting or clarifying a misconception that he was "being harrassed just because he provides an alternative route"
Regarding the inference that he might be easy-going:-
I'm sure that he does operate within WPATH guidelines - with the amount of scutiny he's had he would have little choice whatever his personal feelings (which I do not know)
So what became of the previous problem that involved him with the GMC? I have the dim recollection that was about dispensing hormones?http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... ard-curtis
Was that also a storm-in-a-teacup and a false allegation? I have no recollection of and cannot find the outcome - probably because of the usual thing, the allegation is front-page news and the retraction one column-inch on page twenty.
I do in fact know personally at least two people who see or have seen Dr Curtis and they report well of him.
To clarify - my slight unease with the private route is general, not in any way specific to Dr Curtis.
A doctor curing disease in private practise is simple. The faster he gets you well again, the better for you and the better for his reputation and consequently business.
The same apllies to a psych treating the mentally ill.
- when it comes to a psych or doctor whose target is "to get you through" something then I think that's a much finer line to walk.
That's especially true of those turned away by a GIC. If they simply got tired of the inherent delay of the UK sytem, then that's less questionable.
If the delay through the GIC was "for cause" then that is a matter which needs more careful evaluation. ( in MY opinion)
CX justify their two-year RLE by claiming a spike in drop-outs from the program in the 18 to 20 month time-frame. (apologies, I no longer have the link) - but if that is accurate then it should give us pause. Few things hurt the cause as much as a Regretter and that should be avoided as much as possible, both for their own sake and for "ours"
My worse mistake in posting last night was that because of my dour mood and frustration over something personal and entirely unrelated, I sounded-off about the general degree of complaining about CX and the treatment of gender in the UK. The GIC's are too few and underfunded, but that is also true of most of the rest of the NHS. Any ire would be better directed at the Government. Without the funds, no department can do much to improve.
(That does not mean that CX shouldn't be roasted over the times when they clearly DO scr*w up)
I was harsh on Christine. I have been supportive to her by PM several times in the past and have been stressing from the first that it was vital to present an image of mental stability to CX.
It was uncharacteristically harsh of me to point that out so bluntly.
At the time, I intended to point out that like many other things there is a glass-half-full/glass-half empty viewpoint of our gender situation in the UK.
When I read my post back next day, even without the inaccuracies, it was more a rant.