Helen Webberley - hearing continues

How do you know this please? As the NHS has been wholesale captured along with the legal profession it seems a reasonable assumption. But I'd love to be wrong.

I'm a little wary of clicking on a google doc - is there a summary anywhere (else) of the 36 proven allegations?

My guess is that an investigation will show that all the tribunal members will have been "trained" by Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence or some of the other self interested groups so very keen on transitioning children.

Your guess would be very wrong.

I haven't read the determination, so this is a general observation, but dishonesty is taken HUGELY seriously. That's particularly true if it's repeated, pre-meditated, for personal gain, or involves a breach of trust. It would be a rare case where dishonesty is found proved that doesn't lead to suspension at least.

As I say, that's all just general principles as I know nothing about this particular case.

Bugger. I had misread the initial charges which written that you did xyz as being the findings.

It looks some like the actual findings that were proven relate to things like not recording observations, or checking blood tests. Does anyone know if the the findings about dishonesty, such as not being open about the limitations placed on her previously have any more weight in terms of ftp?

The Mail includes some of the curious quotes.

mol.im/a/10751047

Specific expert aside, I guess there's quite a lot of difference between the cases really. MW did not defend himself so the GMC's expert was not cross-examined in his case and also he did not provide his own expert witness for an alternative view. Wasn't it also argued that he was not even qualified to prescribe to children whereas HW was because she is a GP?

HW, on the other hand, defended herself so the GMC's expert was cross-examined and she had her own expert with an alternative view so the panel will have had to decide which expert they prefer which can be quite tricky when they have opposing opinions. Also my understanding is that HW would only have to reach the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion at the time she was treating these patients.

Where is Ben Cooper when we need him

Where is Ben Cooper when we need him

I'm another one also wondering about that!

I have no idea how any of this can "stand up" in light of the Cass Report.

As usual, logic is nowhere to be seen... (like the nailing jelly to the wall comment!)

Well I'm glad that I'm not going nuts on my own here. I appreciate that different GMC teams will prep their cases differently, but it just seems like such a glaring anomaly. I don't even know if it can be put right now.

Yes, apologies, I'm typing on the hoof today. I'm not sure when that's happening either, does anyone know when they're due to reconvene? I seem to remember that Harrop's happened fairly quickly but I may be misremembering.

I thought that SpindleInTheWind! I also have no clue.

How is it that Dr Michael Webberley's tribunal managed to produce the expert endocrinologist Dr Richard Quinton (of Newcastle Hospitals Trust & University) - who was superbly focused - and Dr Helen Webberley's tribunal didn't?

What am I missing?

I think my concerns now are as to what the outcome will be. Firstly they have to decide if her practice was impaired and if so, what sanction should be given. They clearly found her knowledgeable and impressive in bullshit but the lack of basic care surely cannot be ignored, never mind the criminal conviction.

1st they decide on misconduct (which is whether or not there was misconduct at the time of the events). I can't imagine that they will not find misconduct.

Then the will decide on current impairment.

It would be possible for them to find that there was misconduct (at the time) but no current impairment. I can't imagine that this would happen though (in this case) in view of the criminal conviction. The public would be outraged so it would be harmful to the medical profession to find no current impairment.

Yes, that's the problem. The tribunal were dealing with the 'facts' put before them and as we know the 'facts' are hugely contested at present, hence the Cass review and (hopefully) Javid's intervention. Also don't forget that all of the expert witnesses are working to the same model so when they were giving evidence they talked about afab, innate gender identity, gender affirming drugs etc. It was excruciating at the time to hear these terms being used in a tribunal without challenge but that is the lay of the land at present, so this is what the tribunal had to work with. It was not for them to make any type of determination about the rights or wrongs of the affirmation model, just whether HW did her job to a good enough standard or not.

I think my concerns now are as to what the outcome will be. Firstly they have to decide if her practice was impaired and if so, what sanction should be given. They clearly found her knowledgeable and impressive in bullshit but the lack of basic care surely cannot be ignored, never mind the criminal conviction.

My guess is that an investigation will show that all the tribunal members will have been "trained" by Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence or some of the other self interested groups so very keen on transitioning children.

Yes they do seem to thave, and no there never has been any robust data supporting any of that.

It is ALL based on 'being nice' and 'feelings' - and notice it is all male too!

Much of what is in that is drivel, the very least amount of thinking applied to some complex issues. I would like someone from the Endocrine Society to contact them (looks at own Contacts list...mmm!)

The sad thing is that, much like the MoJ decision, based on the fact that there is no law about housing men in the female state because who the hell would do it?, Webberley will get away with much of her antic as there is no precedent. Plus little or no actual information on long term issues, no follow ups, so no proof of harm.

Currently, in real terms, Webberley is the bloody expert by dint of the very things being held up to accuse her!

And now I need to lie down in a darkened room...

Plus the criminal conviction which involved not registering with the required regulator and failing to stop treating patients when told to.

I've had a flick through but 205 pages is a lot to get through. I think the tribunal findings actually sum up well where we're at: transgender healthcare is in a mess. HW has been found competent to prescribe hormones because the guidance, training and policies are in such a mess. We're always finding holes in the pretzel logic that goes on and that diabolical nonsense upthread wrt hormone washes is just a small example of what the tribunal were having to work with. The 'diagnosis' in itself does not stand up to logic and therefore it's no wonder that the treatment pathways and GIDS are in such a mess. So whilst there are a lot of not proven allegations, the ones that are proven are important because they are at the core of what a Doctor should be doing, eg:

• physical examinations
• gaining consent
• record keeping
• assessing capacity

The GMC counsel didn't seem to do a very good job, however, again I think this is because of the confusion that's being dealt with (in part). Trying to drill down on something so wishy washy is like trying to nail jelly or argue with a toddler about cutted up pear. But, the tangible aspects were mainly found proven and that is a good thing. Javid needs to get a wriggle on and get addressing these issues before others spot the gap in the market, learn from HWs incompetence and start dishing out the hormones.

Sorry, in a rush, but those are my initial (not very well articulated!) thoughts so far.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10751047/Doctor-ran-online-transgender-clinic-failed-provide-adequate-follow-care-tribunal-finds.html

First news report I've found

From the extracts posted above it sounds like the tribunal have credulously accepted webberleys view of trans gender identity definitely being innate & fixed from birth. That this is the enlightened and cutting edge view, dismissing the idea that it could be changeable and partially learnt. And not considering that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this.

Compare that to this jn the background section of the Cass interim report:

"1.7. At primary, secondary and specialist
level, there is a lack of agreement, and in
many instances a lack of open discussion,
about the extent to which gender
incongruence in childhood and
adolescence can be an inherent and
immutable phenomenon for which transition
is the best option for the individual, or a
more fluid and temporal response to a
range of developmental, social, and
psychological factors. Professionals’
experience and position on this spectrum
may determine their clinical approach."

It's also a bizarre argument that if a male child brought up as a girl (because of damaged genitals or whatever) can still sense they are male, then this proves that some boys are actually have an innate girl identity. Surely it's evidence that sex is central to the whole person, not just the reproductive organs. It would only support the idea of innate trans identity if you started from the premises that everyone has a sex, and a separate gender identity which is free floating from the body.

at base, the tribunal is conflating DSDs/intersex conditions with 'transgenderism'. This also is ... surprising.

the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times

I find this astonishing. Given the Cass Review, the recent remarks by Sajid Javid and articles from Marci Bowers and others, this view seems to be backdated as well as extreme and hugely politically motivated.

That really isn't very enlightened. For a start they are conflating DSDs, unproven stuff about hormone washes in the womb (which apparently only affect the brain not the body), transgenderism and gender nonconformity.

WPATH released a statement in May 2010 urging the ‘de-psychopathologisation of gender nonconformity worldwide’.

Gender nonconformity is not the same as gender dysphoria or transgenderism (or DSDs). Of course gender nonconformity shouldn't be pathologised.

Dr Dean, in his oral evidence, referred to an e-learning module hosted at the material time by the Royal College of General Practitioners

Does it say anything else about what was contained in this e-learning module and who wrote it? I presume this came from a group like GIRES or Gendered Intelligence. Was this the short course that Webberley did which apparently made her eligible to claim to be an expert on transgenderism?

But if transgenderism is 'somatic' rather than psychological, then it should be possible to carry out diagnostic tests of someone claiming to be transgender. Not just self reports by middle-aged heterosexual men with children that they have felt like this since childhood, and young people parroting whatever they have read on the internet. How convenient that it's only post mortem tests that can establish the truth about whether a person claiming a transgender identity has the * *'structural neurobiology of the brain' which supports this (and are these tests accurate anyway?)