Transgender clinic linked to teen's suicide giving 12-year-olds puberty blockers

It wasn’t meant as a direct comparison Knights I was trying to highlight how the implementation of the guidelines may vary between healthcare providers and internal bias can creep into it even though it shouldn’t.

Last week on the Keira Bell thread, someone linked to concerns a whistleblower (I think it was a WB?) had about a man she suspected was a paedophile trying to get blockers for his daughter.

If this place is prescribing them without even meeting the child or parent in person, how on Earth are they going to prevent situations like that? A child that is being abused may be terrified and will go along with what they're told to go along with. It's sickening to think about.

It’s the moment when you realise there is no scope for reasoned debate!

This is where the spiral leads
mirandayardley.com/en/when-a-transsexual-is-prosecuted-for-transgender-hate-crime/

Yes Wine, that sounded very much like what happened. I don’t know why it bothered me so much but it did.

This will always be somewhat subjective, I for example I might use the guidelines to make a decision to supply emergency hormonal contraceptives to a 13 year old (perfectly allowed), someone else may deem this inappropriate and each case is unique.

But do you honestly think that prescribing a child hormone blockers to stall their normally developing puberty completely, a use which they are not actually licenced, a use which hasnt been properly researched and which experts are not actually sure of the outcomes of, a use which may not be reversible, which could prevent a child from ever going through puberty if they then go on to cross sex hormones (which they nearly all do), which could stop a human's brain from going through the vital developmental stages of puberty, make them permanently infertile and so on... You think that is in any way comparable to prescribing a 13 year old the Pill?

It means that if you question something that very reasonably concerns you but does not fit the narrative you are labeled as hateful.

I have seen it happen regularly on twitter. Including to trans people themselves.

Excuse my ignorance Wine but what exactly is the purity spiral?

Not sure if you are missing much truffly. You maybe seeing the purity spiral in action though.

There is no doubt at all that any of this care needs to be done by a fully accredited clinic and not by one that has a history such as Gender GP.

However, I have felt my confidence in a child getting appropriate options via NHS for treatment also shaken.

And that there is scaremongering about contraception that may lead to aspects of the prescription of someone so young of puberty blockers being minimized. That the Tavistock has stated that a child who knows what an erection is and the mechanics of sex is deemed knowledgeable and experienced enough to sign away their right to pleasure and orgasm in sex and to have future children does merit much further exploration, in my opinion. That and the release of their proof that the affirmation only model is working long term ie. Do a rigorous follow up research project of transitioners.

Yes Chaz, we can all agree to disagree on many things but I think we should all be in agreement that medical treatment of any kind must be safe and well regulated.

I tried to make this point on twitter but was pretty much told either I must support unregulated internet healthcare or else I’m a raging transphobe. I don’t think my opinions are mutually exclusive though, am I missing something there?

I think TrufflyPig is highlighting an important point. Even if we disagree about treatment pathways we can agree that the supply of these drugs via an offshore provider is not appropriate. These drugs should be part of a properly monitored treatment programme not available via the internet from a company linked to a GP who has been suspended.

The answer is I’m honestly not sure. Implementation of the Gillick/Fraser rules relies on the experience and judgement of the healthcare professional at the time and each case will wildly differ. This will always be somewhat subjective, I for example I might use the guidelines to make a decision to supply emergency hormonal contraceptives to a 13 year old (perfectly allowed), someone else may deem this inappropriate and each case is unique.

I don’t think one case means the whole system is unfit for purpose and I’m worried about the implications this case may have on future use of the guidelines regarding young people and consent to medical treatment.

But I absolutely believe in proper regulation in healthcare. If a provider is acting inappropriately then they should be reprimanded. I also don’t think you can assess competence properly online, it should always be face to face.

I have no issue with children accessing puberty blockers and gender services provided they meet the Gillick competence requirements and that the treatment is accessed via face to face appointments with qualified specialists either within the NHS or private sector.

And after listening to the defence at Keira Bells case, do you feel absolutely confident that even Tavistock is thoroughly assessing these children? When the defence barrister also uses children of 12 having sex as a guidance to competence?

I recently got called a transphone on Twitter for saying I supported the GPhC for investigating Clear Chemist. As a pharmacist this legal loophole concerns me greatly.

At risk of poking the bear I will say my views regarding trans people don’t align with some on this site and I have no issue with children accessing puberty blockers and gender services provided they meet the Gillick competence requirements and that the treatment is accessed via face to face appointments with qualified specialists either within the NHS or private sector.

I do not support a service that is essentially the black market. Doctors who have been struck off in the UK have no business prescribing abroad then using an online pharmacy to aid and abet them. I really hope this loophole is closed soon. Allowing Clear Chemist to continue sets a dangerous president for anyone who wishes to bypass the regulatory system.

From what I can see too the GPhC hasn’t actually imposed any sanctions on Clear Chemist, they said they would investigate and the pharmacy shat themselves at the thought of the regulators sniffing around and stopped providing the service. This should be a massive red flag! Both GenderGP and Clear Chemist are profiteering from peoples desperation, they aren’t the white knights they are being made out to be by some.

That’s my two pennies worth anyway. Happy to discuss and learn.

What I want to know is when people go to the GP or a specialist do they then even declare the drugs they are on if they get them from this clinic?
If anyone didn’t because it would be ‘outing’ then that could be extremely dangerous. Understandably it is essential for GPs to have records and knowledge of any other treatment - does the GenderGP emphasise this to their patients I wonder?

I still can’t understand how so many people are encouraging children to take powerful drugs purely because they choose to and actively discourage them from seeking alternative treatment!!

That Pulse article seems to be restricted when you click on that link but I read the full thing earlier. Here's the text from the Google cache. It answers my question above. The RCGP doesn't think GPs should be prescribing these drugs to their patients as they lack the necessary expertise and training.

***
RCGP drops gender dysphoria course due to ‘unrealistic expectations’ on GPs

08 February 2019

The RCGP has dropped an online course on gender dysphoria following GP concerns that they are being expected to prescribe outside of their clinical competence.

The e-learning course, launched in 2015 in partnership with the charity Gender Identity Research & Education Society (GIRES), was developed in response to the ‘lack of high-quality clinical guidance’, the RCGP said.

However, the RCGP decided to remove the course from its website in December as it could create ‘unrealistic expectations for patients regarding the role of the GP in initiating treatment’.

GP leaders said they should not have to ‘bear the brunt of poor access to specialist gender reassignment’ and argued they do not have the training to prescribe some of the treatments mentioned.

In 2017, NHS England published a consultation on gender identity services, asking for views on GPs’ involvement in prescribing hormone therapy.

This followed a row between the GP Committee and GMC over GPs’ concerns that they were being forced to prescribe to gender dysphoria patients without the necessary expertise. The GPC responded by advising GPs to ignore GMC guidance on the matter.

The RCGP gender dysphoria course provided guidance to GPs on how to prescribe and monitor the medication recommended by the specialist clinicians in the gender identity clinics.

Prior to the removal of the course, the RCGP made a series of changes to lessen the burden on GPs, which included the insertion of additional wording and the deletion of references.

But in a statement, GIRES – which paid the RCGP £7,837 to run the course – said the changes were made without authorisation, and undermined ‘the responsibility of GPs to precribe and monitor the medication recommended by the specialist clinicians in the gender identity clinics’.

‘Refusal of primary care support is a major detriment and GIRES could not agree to changes in a resource that was meant to help GPs to support transgender people with confidence, when the changes made are in direct contravention of NHS and GMC guidelines, and give GPs excuses to deny access to healthcare for transgender people,’ the statement said.

RCGP honorary secretary Dr Jonathan Leach said: ‘GPs should not have to bear the brunt of poor access to specialist gender reassignment services by being put in a position where they are being asked to prescribe treatment that they are not trained to prescribe or monitor safely without expert support’.

‘In the vast majority of cases, trans patients will present to the GP with the same conditions that cisgender patients do. But new presentations of gender reassignment are exceptional in general practice – it is a specialist area of medicine, and treatment should be initiated in specialist care,’ he added.

Pulse reported last year about the lack of progress on an awaited transgender service in Wales, expected to be in place by the end of March 2018 but later set to open in October.

The RCGP said it is currently funding and developing a new e-learning course for GPs on gender variance, which is set to be launched later this year.
*

Stonewall say GPs 'have a duty' to continue the GenderGP prescriptions

Is it safe for a GP to prescribe these drugs without specialist training in endocrinology?

The panic came because quite a number had tried to have their GPs prescribe the drugs and the GPs refused.

What I want to know is when people go to the GP or a specialist do they then even declare the drugs they are on if they get them from this clinic?

Whoever wrote the Mirror headline should read the Samaritans guidelines on reporting on suicide.

OK, I'll start off by saying straight out I am not a doctor or a scientist, but as concerned layperson I would have thought nobody should be prescribing drugs of this nature unless they have had extensive professional training in endocrinology. Would any doctor or scientist be able to say whether I'm being alarmist here? Is it safe for a GP to prescribe these drugs without specialist training in endocrinology? What sort of monitoring should be done on patients who're taking these drugs? Is it safe to prescribe with no follow up? (I take it as read it's not ethical.)

As far as I can see, neither of the Webberleys is qualified in endocrinology.

Dr HW worked as a GP for many years. Her LinkedIn profile mentions doing a course on gender variance with the Royal College of General Practitioners. I assume it's this one: www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/prescribing/rcgp-drops-gender-dysphoria-course-due-to-unrealistic-expectations-on-gps/#:~:text=RCGP%20drops%20gender%20dysphoria%20course%20due%20to%20'unrealistic%20expectations'%20on%20GPs,-08%20February%202019&text=The%20RCGP%20has%20dropped%20an,outside%20of%20their%20clinical%20competence. E-learning module, no longer offered because of the RCGP's concerns that GPs were being expected to do too much in this area without the proper training and back up.

Dr MW used to be a consultant gastroenterologist in Wales.

The GMC registration page confirmes that both doctors are suspended and not allowed to practise medicine in the UK. Presumably there are conditions in place which they have not met or the suspension would have been ended. www.gmc-uk.org/doctors?text=webberley

Is this a link or coincidence?
GenderGP + Dr Harrop (GP) Liverpool + Chemist in Liverpool

Dr Adrian Harrop - has he worked with Dr's Webberley in any professional medical capacity since their suspension by the GMC?

They hide transition in schools from the parents, how long before GPs and chemists are doing the same?

Surely after this and the emphasis that Tavistock put on the need to provide extensive mental health support first (so they say they provide), mermaids will have to change their link to this company.

How much more needs to come out before parents realise that this is a very dodgy company to deal with and mermaids is not much better.

Clear Chemist Liverpool.

They work with GPs?

Can't be Webberly and Co, can it? Not in the UK anyway.

Fishy.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/these-people-should-be-in-jail

These people should be in jail
By JL