Advanced search

Review of GIDS

(13 Posts)
ChazsBrilliantAttitude Wed 02-Dec-20 11:16:25

The review led by Dr Hillary Cass is going to be interesting now. The judgement has blown apart GIDS current working practices. The review won’t be able to say broadly OK but needs tweaking not will they be able to suggest anything that doesn’t conform with the judgement.

OP’s posts: |
ChazsBrilliantAttitude Wed 02-Dec-20 11:16:56

nor instead of not

OP’s posts: |
persistentwoman Wed 02-Dec-20 12:02:36

This is the one with the male doctor on the panel who refers to women as "cervix havers" is it not?

rogdmum Wed 02-Dec-20 12:04:40

Is that not the CQC panel, persistentwoman ? Hilary Cass’ panel has not been announced.

persistentwoman Wed 02-Dec-20 12:07:55

Presumably that's Dr Brady - the LGBT etc lead?
I note that the brief refers to the QCC review of GIDs / Tavistock in the Autumn which I believe pronounced GIDs as good?
Doesn't say much for their assessment as they evidently missed the lack of data, lack of research, lack of evidenced base medicine and the unethical medical experimentation on children? Maybe they were referring to the coffee provided? hmm

persistentwoman Wed 02-Dec-20 12:16:31

Apologies if I've got confused rogdmum.

Given that Brady's response to the JR was to state that Research shows that gender affirmative care supports mental health and reduces the risk of self-harm and suicide with no mention of unethical medical practice or safeguarding children, let's hope he's kept well away from any involvement with this review as his bias is already showing.

MaudTheInvincible Wed 02-Dec-20 12:26:13

Hilary Cass is aware of people's concerns:

MaudTheInvincible Wed 02-Dec-20 12:27:42

Hopefully this means she will guard against anything which could bring trust in the review into doubt.

BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero Wed 02-Dec-20 13:00:04

I have lots of faith in Dr Cass. Fingers crossed it’s not misplaced.

nevertrustaherdofcows Wed 02-Dec-20 14:00:23

Q: If yesterday's judgment didn't make any new rules but said that actually rules were already in place and should be adhered to; and the rules are that a court should be consulted in the case of tweens and young teens ... doesn't that mean that any such treated with puberty blockers and then cross-hormones without reference to a court, have 100% grounds to sue?

MaudTheInvincible Wed 02-Dec-20 14:30:25

Going forwards any clinician who prescribes them to under-18s is certainly risking it. Their insurers probably will refuse cover.

highame Wed 02-Dec-20 14:53:49

Isn't Kiera's second case on hold because of this review? I am wondering, in light of the case yesterday whether Kiera may not have to pursue once the review is conducted. Hopefully she wont have to slog through another case, but NHS should be very wary of poorly implemented changes in light of the judicial review.

persistentwoman Wed 02-Dec-20 14:57:20

Thank you Maud. it's a relief that individuals with a vested interest are not being allowed to participate. His tweets I quoted upthread are shocking to see from a doctor - but of course an indication of why children have been treated as they have at GIDs.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in