Helen Webberley

Thinking about the Bell case, don’t you need informed consent?

Whether or not anyone believes it’s possible to obtain informed consent from a minor, the Gender GP website seems to openly advertise the fact that they aren’t interested in establishing whether customers are capable of consenting to drugs that have a permanent and serious side effects.

I can’t see how Webberley’s stated approach to consent can acceptable.

The Wakefield comparison is spot on.

See also, Andrew Wakefield.

Indeed. Where the fuck are Deer, Goldachre et al now?

Yes, the very same, Warrior. The one who is now sole Chair of Green Party Women while the other one is suspended, and who found that uppity women wouldn't stop talking about transexclusionary things like female biology, IIRC, so changed the settings on the discussion forum so that only the ex-croupier can post and the uppity women just get to read what the ex-croupier deems important for them to know.

I’m pretty sure that the underlying principle of record keeping is that if there isn't a record it didn't happen.

Yes Fanny - if HW has no record of obtaining consent (or any other part of the process for that matter), then tough luck, it is assumed not have happened.

Paperwork and audit trail is everything these days. In every setting from factories to schools, so definitely the case in medicine!

Well said Sophocles

Is that the former croupier who celebrated on twitter the defeat of sex based rights in the Green Party?

I'd have thought gaining written consent is safeguarding 101. At the very least to protect yourself. Not putting yourself in a situation where you could be accused of something is a safeguarding basic.

Which demonstrates wider lack of understanding about safeguarding.

with a view to realising my dream of working as a female therapist.

Choked on my tea there.

This is a male born trans woman who had an aim to counsel only women? Vulnerable women seeking counselling?

Very valid and helpful shout out Sophocles

I’d just like to give a shout out to all of the parents and family of potential customers of gender GP, or potential customers themselves who may be lurking here or who may have found their way here from Google at some point.

Ask yourself why people are continuing to defend shoddy practices, ethical breaches and mendacity from Webberley and people like her. How have you come to believe that there is such urgency to procure for children and vulnerable, unhappy people one particular course of treatment that it is reasonable and rational to bypass and disregard all normal standards of safety and ethics? How have you been persuaded to leap to the defence of someone whom it has already been proven cannot be trusted to adhere to the normal standards of her profession?

Me, I think you should demand better. I think you should hold the experts to a meticulously high standard of care, when they have your children’s future wellbeing, fertility and sexual function in their hands. I’d be demanding the absolute top standard of evidence based medicine, delivered by competent, ethical practitioners. If we continue to hold the line that “any care, even bad care, is better than no care”, people will be damaged.

This is based on over 30 yrs working in the NHS, having had similar training on the legal aspects of informed consent, duty of care and record keeping and having been involved in systematic audit of health care records.

No contemporaneous written record = it didn't happen.

Caveat: maybe the patient would swear on oath that it did happen and could provide proof, eg. a copy of the information supplied at the time and perhaps this would be accepted in lieu of a contemporaneous signed or initialed record?

Even Frank Spencer could be made to look good on there. 25 yard breaststroke among many of his achievements.

(Some mother's do 'ave 'em)

No record of consent only really proves that no record was taken of the consent process. The GMC have to prove their case and in a situation where there is no patient evidence HW's defence is likely to be that she did gain consent from the patient but that she didn't write it down.

Not to labour the point, and I haven't had the chance to catch up on all the proceedings today, but I really don't think it's for the GMC to prove that she didn't gain consent. It's for her to prove that she did. I'm pretty sure that the underlying principle of record keeping is that if there isn't a record it didn't happen.
After all, why would one go to the trouble of obtaining consent and not record that one has done so?
Also applies to anything else one might expect to make a record of, from basic TPR/NEWS obs, to Falls assessments to drugs administration.
Consent is a massive deal for litigation, not having explained possible complications etc. I listened to a presentation from our hospital legal person only recently where this was stressed. The expected standard has changed recently and crucially the standard has been implemented retrospectively, I'm going to have to try to find five minutes to listen to the key part again to refresh my memory, I think iirc the key part was that instead of the standard being what most medical colleagues would expect, it has changed to what most non medical (patients) would understand.
I'll try to find it and check my facts tomorrow.

I've got a certificate from primary school for 'Throws - 5 metres'. Shall I put it on a CV and get a job as their go-to endocrinologist adviser? I have google on my phone to help.

But I believe you are right in thinking the role would be first point of contact or certainly early on in the process.

My understanding is it's £25 per half hour by phone/Zoom etc.

These would be one on one conversations with vulnerable children and adults.

So...croupier huh...really?

So, from what you posted R0, Marianne Oakes had less than a year's experience after qualifying before going into private practice?

That's bold.

There is far more about Marianne's wardrobe and grooming in that CV than of Marianne's actual clinical expertise or qualifications - which seems unusual on a professional page.

Looking at the website links and thinking about the Tavistock case and Telegraph report, Gender GP, with which HW is still closely linked, doesn’t seem to have a policy of obtaining proper consent or evaluating previous medical history now.

Will this be part of the case or will it only relate to specific historical cases?

I think it means she gets to keep cashing the checks.

She could absolutely just be a grifter, but when I listen to her speak, she is absolutely and resolutely entrenched in her beliefs. There's a rigidity there, which was picked up in previous hearings, where she is totally unwilling to self reflect or question her practice or beliefs. And that is how people become dangerous practitioners, not just in a medical field. It could be because she's just thinking of the money, and she could be a talented actor, but that's an impressive performance to maintain for a prolonged period of time. I also wonder whether there's an element of self preservation going on, she wouldn't be the first to maintain their position because any wavering from that position would mean admitting that they'd participated in terrible acts.

Regardless of motivation, in her podcast about the tribunal she frequently asserts that she knows 'it may not go my way'. She knows it, so she'll use the opportunity to continue to promote her thinking and drag the Tavi and co through the mud as she goes. Which, of course, will send more customers her way. I'm hoping the awareness that the Baroness is trying to raise around the prescribing loopholes gets some traction because whatever the result of this tribunal, GenderGP will keep on, with HW as their 'advocate'... whatever that means.

From the process link.

we do not believe that ‘compulsory’ counselling or psychotherapy is of benefit to anybody. We certainly do not believe in putting people through lengthy assessments in order to validate their gender.

Thanks rowan. Nothing in that CV suggests any ability to treat somebody with complex problems, particularly when ‘treatment’ involves supplying controlled drugs to 15 year old girls that will have a permanent, possibly life limiting effect.

The process
www.gendergp.com/gendergps-approach-to-assessments-yes-you-are-trans-enough/

The Team
www.gendergp.com/meet-the-team/

The costs
www.gendergp.com/fees/#fees-tabs|0