Chaos at the new Tavistocks

I know it’s been said before but we are going to end up with another inquiry with the NHS, Tavistock & its replacement all trying to avoid being held responsible. Data collection and evidence based treatment will all come under the spotlight.

Individual therapists/clinicians will be held to account for lack of exploring options and rushing to medicalise.

Despite how bad the NHS is I am thankful we are not in the USA where medical insurance will pay for puberty blockers and surgery. There are a lot of Drs and drug companies getting very fat on the income stream this is generating.

'The desire to recruit people with different views ultimately led to placing Gids whistleblowers – those who had repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of the service and the clinical model it was operating under – alongside those they had either blown the whistle on, or who were still working under a system they had roundly criticised. It could never work. The team manager’s resignation in October 2023 was quickly followed by others. LinkedIn profiles confirm that several other members of the team stopped working at Gosh in December.'

It's not quite clear who left and who remains. Is it the cheerleaders for 'affirmative' care?

What reputable medics would want to be involved in this exercise, which to me looks like building the Titanic?

'...the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) has been called on to try to rescue the opening planned for April this year. Great Ormond Street Hospital (Gosh), one of the hospitals that will run the new London-based service, was responsible for developing key training materials, but has been unable to produce them on time. The material, which a team of ten was employed to work on from last spring, was meant to have been finalised months ago, but it’s understood the group could not agree on the content. A planned training day for new staff was cancelled in October 2023 with just a day’s notice. Gosh will play no further role in training going forward, with that responsibility being taken over by the AMRC. '

Is that the sound of qualified medics opening a can of worms and then dropping a hot potato? Hot wormy potato, maybe?

So in essence it's all falling to bits because the lobby representatives won't tolerate anything but their views and their chosen model.

Gosh I am surprised.

Were you surprised? I was surprised....

The Care Quality Commission has approved UK's first private gender clinic for over 16 year olds:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/207c5663-6073-4006-a7ed-11d10b153619?shareToken=0c0c37c33111e3758991ac53881822e2

Jaysus.

A shambles really, isn't it.

I was concerned at the time that Cass was too "gentle" about the appalling lack of evidence & research & the fact that these medics have been experimenting on children. But given the levels of capture appreciated that it was important to be evidenced and not provoke an over reaction.
I suppose it's worked to an extent as the general population are now totally behind stopping experiments on children and those arguing for immediate affirmation just out themselves as ideologically driven.

I just hope that the children's hospitals are able to hold the line for ethical medical practice for children. Having seen how the Tavistock and the NHS have thoughtlessly bought into "born in the wrong body", TWAW etc, I'm just not confident that medical ethics are strong enough to fight off the gender woowoo brigade. Do hope that I'm wrong.

Thanks, Brainworm.

'I can't see how they can reconcile 'building on what is already working well in gender medicine' (which is the rationale for moving over Tavi staff) with more robust processes (using science to guide practice). The non Tavi staff will sit in MDTs and innocently ask for evidence to back formulations and assertions and will not be able to support them. The ex Tavi staff will not accept any challenge that is grounded in 'oppression' (aka scientific studies).'

Yes. There isn't a middle ground between 'evidence based' and 'ideology based'.

The NHS are going to have to choose.

This was an inevitable outcome of the Cass recommendation to have a broader range of professionals involved in the new clinics' multi disciplinary teams (MDTs).

In my career I have been part of a many MDTs. It isn't uncommon for professionals to take different views (e.g a psychiatrist thinking a diagnosis of autism explains a child's behaviour whilst a psychologist thinks early neglect and trauma is a better explanation). MDTs improve patient care as hypotheses and explorations go wider than would be the case with a single professional/discipline. The team discuss the merits of different 'formulations' and this can often lead to further (needed) exploration.

GIDS (the Tavi iteration) comprised of (or was managed in to being) a team who all signed up to the same doctrine and within the MDTs, no disagreement that went outside the doctrine was tolerated (transphobia). The only accepted positioning was ideological but framed by them as 'ethical'.

The Tavi don't have concerns about the lack of evidence in relation to the types of evidence others are calling for, and will be required when working with non indoctrinated team members. This is because the Tavi think we need to 'decolonise psychology'. Apparently, the Western world has 'limited ideas' about what counts as evidence and these limited ideas (scientific approaches) aren't benign. They serve as a tool for oppressing marginalised groups (such as trans people). Therefore, they feel righteous about not having this evidence and think claims that it should determine patient care are a problem in itself.

It is hard to see how Tavi clinicians can operate effectively in an MDT with clinicians who hold opposing views on what counts as evidence.

The NHS is organised around, and operates from, scientific evidence. I can't see how a service, now under proper level of scrutiny and expected to be aligned with other clinical services, can be based on 'decolonised' evidence. What is coming out now via Kathleen Stock and this article are evidence of this.

I can't see how they can reconcile 'building on what is already working well in gender medicine' (which is the rationale for moving over Tavi staff) with more robust processes (using science to guide practice). The non Tavi staff will sit in MDTs and innocently ask for evidence to back formulations and assertions and will not be able to support them. The ex Tavi staff will not accept any challenge that is grounded in 'oppression' (aka scientific studies).

My money is that the Tavi ideologues days are numbered. The NHS is too strapped for cash to be funding anything that isn't effective or defensible. I am not, however, willing to bet on how long it'll take to get there. I had hoped (but not expected) that due to the time scale of planned opening, they would have just chucked out the Tavi crew when all this came to light. Instead, they delayed opening to try and reconcile irreconcilable differences.

Middle ground

Yes, this all sounds very nice and people realising that this is a major, major problem are clinging to it like a life raft, hoping that there is a nice win-win way to protect women, children, homosexuals, disabled people, people of minority faiths and cultures yada yada without actually having to upset the TQ+ lobby.

Their position is that anything but their beliefs is heresy. <Burn witch here>.

There was also the excellent point made a few days ago and I'm sorry I can't remember the poster's name: to the effect of if someone snatches your handbag should you be expected to find 'middle ground' with your mugger? How much of your handbag and its contents should you be willing to share to find a nice win-win solution? Or is this behaviour requiring boundaries, backbone and the word 'no' and 'I don't care how cross you get about not getting your own way in this, the law is there to protect others' rights, bodies and property from those who have no capacity for respecting them voluntarily'?

This is the crux of it really.

If you a member of this faith, then it is heresy to not be wholly and entirely biased and to reject everything but the followings of the teachings of the faith.

Which is fine, we're a multi faith society, we live in tolerance of each other.

But this is the only faith that requires such total partiality and rejection of all other views, and cannot permit open mindedness or following of other responsibilities or even the law or facts if they conflict with the beliefs.

And unfortunately this renders a believer in this faith unable to hold a post of responsibility that requires equality and impartiality. It's incompatible.

This is going to have to be faced by the government. You cannot ask a staunch Catholic to run an abortion service. You cannot ask a believer in gender ideology to provide an impartial health service that is open minded about the best interests of a child questioning their gender.

And the service is there for the best interests of the child. Not for the believers to enact their faith upon the child.

Genuinely, I don’t think finding a middle ground should be the aim.

This.

They need to be starting from a place of evidence based medicine. And the affirmation side is not, nowhere near it. (I don't know how well the "exploratory therapy" side is doing on that, I suspect they too are taking a lot of things as read that are not based on any actual data.)

Imagine insisting that clinicians must take an affirmation only approach to patients’ self diagnoses in other areas.

I see you’ve said you need a heart bypass; I’ll just schedule that now. No need for any tests or discussion to determine that it’s even a problem with your heart at all. 🙄

“Some clinicians are very affirmative, and believe most patients will benefit from medication and will transition. Others are more cautious and want to think about the child’s development,” a source close to the training discussions said.
“It has been very challenging and there has been a lot of pressure to finalise things when there’s no consensus within the team. I don’t know how we will get to a middle ground.”

Genuinely, I don’t think finding a middle ground should be the aim.

What this needs is leadership to centre services for young people around holistic development considering the ecosystem around the child.

This should not be controversial. Open minded exploration of the problem is much better than going in with ‘we’ve all decided the solution before we even start’ affirmation. Especially since affirmation seems to mean a one-way medical pathway.

HCPs need to leave their activism at the door. Insisting their non-activist colleagues are ‘transphobes’ for favouring a holistic exploratory approach - especially in the absence of a proper evidence base - is really dangerous.

What he fuck has gone wrong that not giving setting children on irreversible medical pathways without checking it’s the right thing to do is positioned as bigotry?

Same thing I picked out, Arthur:

”the second is suspicious of exploratory therapy, arguing that it could enter the realm of conversion practices.”

They are laying out their intentions very clearly and I hope the government picks up on it before ramming home any damaging laws that would encourage these ghouls to throw their sane colleagues to the wolves.

We know that trans activists don't do debate, research, science, facts or safeguarding. It must be terrifying to be a child centred medic / therapist working there as you will have no idea when the activists will set the mob on you - online or in real life.
Sadly this needs courageous politicians like Duffield, Badenoch, Cates and others to force the government to intervene and insist that the NHS cuts strings with these adult focused political lobby groups. The biased activists must be removed from all the centres. We need qualified, ethical professionals who can unpick this mess and ensure that children get insightful, evidenced and compassionate treatment - first do no harm and all that.

'One current member of Tavistock staff said: “What they are proposing to do is gender exploratory therapy. My view, as a clinician working in gender services, is that this is tantamount to conversion therapy for trans youth. It’s very problematic and very unethical.”'

And there we go.

'...some of those within the team involved in setting up the new services are challenging Cass’s recommendations. Several people told the Guardian tensions were emerging as clinicians tried to draw up training modules for staff. One person close to the work described the atmosphere as “tribal”.'

'As delays to the openings continue, NHS England (NHSE) has started to divert thousands of 17-year-olds, and 16-year-olds who turn 17 before next March, towards the adult waiting list, where they are likely to receive a different, less exploratory form of treatment.'

Oh, fuck.

Amelia Gentleman has done balanced pieces on this issue before. She reported on the Mermaids/LGBA case, for example.

The Guardian policy these days seems to be to publish pieces that are on board with gender ideology, occasionally with a few balanced pieces thrown in to make it seems as if they're not completely ideologically captured. What you won't see is any article that is outright opposed to gender ideology, except in the Observer.

Yes.

I suppose though that at least we're seeing now the battle of others standing up saying this is not good (evidence and reasons), this shouldn't happen (evidence and reasons) and people need to know there are very big concerns here. As opposed to unhindered, quiet, uninterfered with galloping of children to medical transitions.

Rather like women are having to battle and go through court and argue and write, but it is no longer an uninterrupted one way totally controlled narrative.

Anyone still wondering how a movement based largely in white, straight, able bodied, affluent, educated, middle class men managed to get such control at such speed only needs to look at how very, very slowly and reluctantly the wheels are turning to protect the equality of humanity of women, children, homosexuals, BAME and those from minority faiths and cultures. It's rather like the Met. All sitting on a foundation of being fundamentally not inclusive at all beyond some nice shiny DEI awards and rainbowy tat.

It does seem pretty balanced! but then I am sure the author has read Time to Think and the lack of safeguarding for the young in there is shocking