Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Temporary ban on private clinics prescribing puberty blockers runs out on 3 September 2024

63 replies

IwantToRetire · 10/07/2024 18:12

Temporary legislation to stop private clinics prescribing puberty blockers runs out on 3 September.

We’ve written to the Heath Secretary, Wes Streeting, to urge him to extend this ban.

This is a health emergency affecting mostly LGB young people.

LGB Alliance
.

I cant find what they have written, but thought I would post this reminder.

Partly because in a short while House of Commons goes into Summer Recess, and then doesn't return until September.

If anyone has more information, or can clarify please do add!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
GreenUp · 11/07/2024 17:52

Is there any email address to request online access to the hearing? I saw tribunal tweets had applied to tweet but I don't know if it's an online hearing or if they are going in person.

theilltemperedclavecinist · 11/07/2024 17:48

IwantToRetire · 11/07/2024 17:08

The order made by Atkins is of a type intended only to be used if it emerges that a drug is so dangerous it must be banned immediately

So you mean they could argue that even if it might be dangerous it should go on being used, until there is concrete proof of the dangers.

Even if that means other may be harmed whilst a full investigation goes ahead? Sad

I don't know what the government can do to dissuade private providers from off-label supply of an approved drug, just because the evidence base for the off-label use is poor. In this situation, it's the prescribing doctor who is exposing themselves to liability if it goes wrong, and I guess they really believe in it 🙁

I hope I'm wrong and that Streeting can find a solution.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 11/07/2024 17:08

The order made by Atkins is of a type intended only to be used if it emerges that a drug is so dangerous it must be banned immediately

So you mean they could argue that even if it might be dangerous it should go on being used, until there is concrete proof of the dangers.

Even if that means other may be harmed whilst a full investigation goes ahead? Sad

OP posts:
theilltemperedclavecinist · 11/07/2024 09:56

It's a narrow procedural case. The order made by Atkins is of a type intended only to be used if it emerges that a drug is so dangerous it must be banned immediately (think: thalidomide or contaminated blood).

I think they are likely to win on this ground. Also if Streeting tries to show that PB do meet the criterion he will probably fail, because the problem isn't that PBs have downsides, it's that the evidence base is just completely woeful, making a cost/benefit analysis impossible.

Yes, we may have our own ideas about this, but the NHS has paused PBs as a precaution only, and they can't force that on private providers.

The hearing could be interesting (and should be open to the public). The fox botherer has strongly implied that there is something damaging in the respondent's discovery documents, which we might find out about.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 11/07/2024 00:49

Many thanks for links.

Need to do something about my memory, this is only about a month ago.

Or it could be my brain didn't want to remember some of the names and what is associated with them.

So their case is that "normal" Government procedure wasn't followed against the outoing Government erring on the side of caution to protect under 18s being prescribed drugs until the new evidence they have been given is properly assessed.

ie the Government very slightly changed the exisitng guidance:

Puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) are not available to children and young people for gender incongruence or gender dysphoria because there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.

From around the age of 16, young people with a diagnosis of gender incongruence or gender dysphoria who meet various clinical criteria may be given gender-affirming hormones alongside psychosocial and psychological support.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

  • breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
  • breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term gender-affirming hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as gender-affirming hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Children, young people and their families are strongly discouraged from getting puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones from unregulated sources or online providers that are not regulated by UK regulatory bodies.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

OP posts:
StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 10/07/2024 21:15

NoWordForFluffy · 10/07/2024 21:09

The fox killer's challenge is listed for a hearing on Friday (IIRC). It may be that Wes Streeting is waiting for its result before doing anything further.

I'd forgotten the GLP's intervention was imminent.

Here's hoping it joins the extensive list of failed actions on the Labour Pains Table of Failure and Futility (TOFF) (known to me as the spreadsheet of ignominy).

https://labourpainsblog.com/2024/05/03/good-law-project-three-score-and-ten/

Good Law Project: Three Score and Ten

Last night’s launch by the (Not Very) Good Law Project of a new crowdfunder – in support of a possible legal challenge in defence of services provided by the controversial, Singapore-ba…

https://labourpainsblog.com/2024/05/03/good-law-project-three-score-and-ten

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 10/07/2024 21:14

NoWordForFluffy · 10/07/2024 21:09

The fox killer's challenge is listed for a hearing on Friday (IIRC). It may be that Wes Streeting is waiting for its result before doing anything further.

Thanks - can you provide a link as a memory jogger for details.

I just reacted on a more basic level the HoC wont have time to discuss.

But presumably, whether after friday or not, a Minister would be able to extend the ban for a further 3 / 6 months - maybe?

Did Labour formally accept the Cass Review.

Oh for a neatly indexed FWR thread resource!

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · 10/07/2024 21:09

The fox killer's challenge is listed for a hearing on Friday (IIRC). It may be that Wes Streeting is waiting for its result before doing anything further.

StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 10/07/2024 21:07

It will be interesting to see what happens, thank you for the memory jog.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread