Helen Webberley is at the Royal Courts of Justice today (14 March 2023) - Tribunal Tweets

They really hate striking off doctors whatever the concerns.

Slightly off topic but I know we have had extensive discussions on various threads (quite a few about Harrop) relating to what it takes to get struck off or to be reinstated.

Linking to an archived (hopefully free to read) link to a Telegraph article today about a Dr who has not been removed from the register despite he himself asking to be struck off and stating he will never practice as a Dr. He has been suspended for one year and I know from previous discussions that to reinstate himself after a year is by no means easy or straightforward. None the less, the reason the panel gave for not striking him off was:

"There is a public interest in facilitating the safe return to work of an otherwise competent doctor, so complete removal of Dr White’s name from the medical register would not be proportionate,”

Personally I'm not keen on having a sex pest doctor. He sounds to have been persistent and highly offensive and one of his victims expressed concern about him having access to sedated patients.

archive.ph/2023.03.16-130311/digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1283/reader/reader.html?%23!preferred/0/package/1283/pub/1283/page/29/article/NaN

Thanks for the link OP. I'm hoping that this judge actually knows their stuff. (Well, frankly, I'm hoping to keep these butchers away from traumatised children. This was an adopted child, who clearly had issues. It's tragic that she fell into the hands of HW)

I believe that one of many things that influenced Allison Bailey's stance on the use of puberty blockers by children is that she has taken the same drugs for her own endometriosis and knows how terrible the side effects can be.

She could have been put on drugs that were sold as puberty blockers for children by Webberley. Unlike their use as puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, they are actually licenced for use for endometriosis BUT only for six months and must only be used once (and there have been reports of significant adverse events associated with there use).

I was told the same after 3 kids at the age of 35. Why on earth anyone thinks an 11 year old can make that decision I have no idea.

No, I think you're at the right end of the stick.

This shows how wrong this medication of children is. My friend suffered severe period pain each month so much so that she was barely able to work. She was also certain that she never wanted children but no doctor would recommend her for treatment that may impact on her fertility.

So in effect she was considered unable to decide never to have children at the age of 30!!!

It doesn't really work like that. She would have needed to attend a review hearing at the end of the two months suspension to demonstrate insight and show that she was unlikely to make the same mistake again. But because she hasn't accepted she has done anything wrong it would be unlikely that a review panel would lift her suspension because they would see her as likely to repeat her behaviour.

Money, money, money.

Same with selling drugs.

Am I getting a wrong end of a stick or is psych assessment required for any/all cosmetic surgery?

See link to a UK hospital on the subject: hmtsthughs.org/standard-policy-for-psychological-assessments/

Considering 'gender affirmation surgery' is an extreme type of cosmetic surgery, how can anyone argue for removing psychological assessment for it?

If Helen Webberly had any sense she would’ve accepted that two month suspension and gone back to work as soon as it was spent.

That she hasn’t done that seems
to suggest her professional insight is even more lacking than that of Adrian Harrop.

A girl aged 11 with ASD would not necessarily comprehend at the same level as an average 11 year old.

“Surgeon thinks there should be no barriers to them making money”

Excuse the random caps

Is cisgender surgery where you have physical surgery to ensure your gender matches your sex?

I’m assuming Cisgender surgery probably just means stuff like Breast augmentation or penis extension or other unnecessary aesthetic surgeries that aren’t available on insurance or NHS for “cis” people.

The Judge must be aware of what's going on re Cass and the Tavistock.

That seems to be a very dangerous assumption to make. I imagine the majority of people have no idea about either of these. And remember the equal treatment bench book training judges have promoting gender ideology?

I suspect that Green and her ilk simply cannot grasp that most surgeries have absolutely nothing to do with gender at al.

Sex might be important in various ways to the surgery. But gallbladder removal is not ‘cisgender’ surgery. It’s gallbladder surgery. Dysfunctional gallbladders don’t care which part of the sparkly rainbow most appeals to you.

Is cisgender surgery where you have physical surgery to ensure your gender matches your sex? Like brain surgery?
Or to make sure that your sex matches your gender? Like... trans surgery? I'm so confused. I'm beginning to think that there's no such thing as a sex matching a gender.

Also, it’s missing the point that the psychiatric assessment is entirely relevant if it’s surgery to remove or adapt perfectly healthy body parts because they don’t match how you feel inside.

If you need a tonsillectomy, it’s to address a problem with your tonsils. So the relevant assessments are to do with that.

For a double mastectomy, the assessment criteria will differ depending on the purpose of the mastectomy. If it’s because you have cancer, it’s an entirely different thing than if you are a trans man who feels their breasts are an issue.

The only way to actually assess the latter is psychological.

Of course, that fool green believes it should just be an on demand service with no assessments. Like ordering takeaway or something.

Psychological assessment [...] is not required for cisgender surgeries of ANY type.

Wrong. Bariatric (weight loss) surgery, for example, includes psychological assessment beforehand.

Remember when Susie Green tweeted about the 'removal of the sterilisation clause'; is that what they are going after?

Webberley is actually arguing that an 11 year old could even possibly know if they might want children in the future?

bloody hell.

Loads of 20-something people are pretty sure they never want to have kids. A decade later quite a few of those people will have changed their minds and had kids.

People are crap at knowing how they’ll fee
about something in advance, more so the further in advance you ask them. Pre-pubescent children are likely to be even worse at this kind of thing, especially when the process of puberty changes so much biologically that affects this stuff.

Doctors should understand this.

Oops bold fail last para

This bit give me hope. The judge can obviously see that HW lacks insight. HW could be back practising by now if she'd completed her month's suspension and promised to be a bit more careful in future when reviewed. But instead she's adamant that she did nothing wrong and so she's unlikely to do anything differently next time. Hopefully the Judge won't want to be the person who unleashes an unrepentant Webberley back into the sphere of prescribing PBs to 11 year olds. The Judge must be aware of what's going on re Cass and the Tavistock. The current climate might make them more likely to err on the side of caution...

J - the tribunal makes a mess of several issues, but then comes to the important point of consenting to fertility. This is a reference to the need for a face to face discussion. It is a complete mess.

There’s another thundering bad point on timing that HW loses either way.

But there is a very good point towards the end. It is not fixating on the lost opportunity on day1; but that it is focused on the lost opportunities throughout the process. And HW has not accepted that gender dysphoria treatment is a process and better communication and Explanation would be very helpful.
Demonstrates a lack of insight and resistance to learning that is concerning.