Excellent BMJ Article Responding to Previous One Featuring ATH

Do we know the author?

This week's BMJ has 2 pages on "improving trans health" talking about extending the service due to demand. Lots on how they are a risk cohort but nothing on whether hormones etc reduce the risk and whether increasing gender dysphoric services may do more harm than good and looking at why people now feel changing their gender is the solution for all their problems.

I love Margaret McCartney and Inside Health is one of the best programmes on radio 4.

She is a gem.

Dr Hillary Jones spoke of caution too on Loose women.

Medicine needs to be held to regulatory and ethical standards (such as ‘first of all, do no harm’), rather than allowing a system where healthcare professionals simply respond to client expectations

This stands out. It is dry and absolutely to the point, a direct challenge to 'we want' and accusations of transohobia if 'we don't get'.

I love Margaret McCartney and Inside Health is one of the best programmes on radio 4. Especially as you can access the archive going way back.

"Biological characteristics of male and female have “historically” been observed at birth and likely this will continue"

Dripping with sarcasm

While the proposal to measure outcomes and experience of those receiving interventions is to be welcomed, there is a vital opportunity, and ethical imperative, to create an ongoing cohort study for all those referred, so that outcomes can be measured at a population level over time.

^ This is so important.

The only thing that letter lacked was paragraph breaks (viewing on a mobile device).

Here she discusses the problem of overtreatment:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091v271

Margaret McCartney often features on R4’s Inside Health. She is consistently excellent and has I think in the past debunked exaggerated medicine related claims and fads.

There does seem to be a number of people coming forward now to have their say when it's been relatively quiet save for a few brave souls. I hope this keeps up.

Thanks for sharing Wanderabout. I had to reread it again just to make sure it was really the sane response I was hoping for.

Medicine needs to be held to regulatory and ethical standards (such as ‘first of all, do no harm’), rather than allowing a system where healthcare professionals simply respond to client expectations. A survey of doctors could helpfully highlight this important issue and describe physicians’ views.

SO GOOD!

I cannot believe this but I am actually applauding the courage and conviction of these physicians FOR SAYING BASIC FACTS! IN A MEDICAL JOURNAL!

Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot.

Why does this even need to be pointed out?

However, the article does not question the steep rise in referrals, especially of girls, to gender identity clinics (GICs) nor concern itself with potential harms of self-diagnosis and prescribing, or medical over-diagnosis and over-treatment.

YES.

The absence of robust independent evidence of the type normally expected by the BMJ when contemplating significant medical interventions was disappointing.

Not just disappointing, actually a borderline dereliction of duty?

We disagree with the campaign group Action for Trans Health’s claim that ‘the continued existence of GICs amounts to wilful abuse of trans people’.

Please disagree with ATH. They're a lobby group with some quite concerning ideas. Their claims should be examined very carefully.