BMA to vote to 'disavow' the Cass review

This is something the Scottish Government has latch onto with great zeal. Or as they called them “lived experience expert panels”. In other words, a self selecting group of political active individuals in line with SNP ideology

Ah, you're very kind! I enjoy your interventions too.
We're such an heddiyoucated bunch on here, aren't we? Can't think of any other online forum where I'd have seen Descartes, Wittgenstein and Foucault all on the same day.

ThePure · Yesterday 18:50
People who engage in medical politics are not representative of the views of all Drs

Yes this. 100%

if I were to undertake a medical treatment I'd like to know that I was apt to do better than the placebo group

I hope you would look for better than that. You really want to know if your treatment is better than the best available alternative. A new painkiller may be better than a placebo but worse than paracetamol. Just testing against a placebo was a common drug company ruse (along with short follow up, small sample size, carefully selected participants that can not be generalised to the whole patient population, only publishing significant results, ignoring those lost to follow-up, lack of blinding of those administering the trial or assessing the results, lack of consideration of adverse/side effects…)

exactly this. Once gay marriage was realised, SW had three choices-1) job done, go home 2) go international where gay rights are still dodgy (i.e. Saudi Arabia-fat chance of that) 3 Glom onto trans rights to remain relevant . Its as if the Salvation Army was taken over by the Mafia.

It's almost as if they've read Foucault not as a social critique but as if it were an owners' manual
Love it, AlexaAdventuress!

I'm one of those postmodernist types who (allegedly) doesn't believe in truth or science or anything like that. But even I'm surprised at how quickly the scientific method or questions of evidence have been repudiated here. After all, even as a postmodernist, if I were to undertake a medical treatment I'd like to know that I was apt to do better than the placebo group. And that the benefits would likely outweigh the side effect profile. I can put myself in a control group quite easily - all I have to do is nothing. Is the treatment going to get me anywhere? I've never felt a strong desire to transition, but if I did, I'm sure these kinds of questions would be uppermost in my mind too. All the more so given the severity of the interventions and the fact that one is committing oneself to a lifetime as an invalid. So the benefits better be good.

It's almost as if they've read Foucault not as a social critique but as if it were an owners' manual. Regimes of truth enforced through power, you say? Right, let's get on with it! As discussed on here, you can see it in Nature, Cell et al, and maybe, by the end of today, in the BMA too.

The NHS doesn't need to medicate anyone's gender. It's cosmetic.

https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/take-pride-in-progress

What is the point of all that training when in reality, they can't use any of it and just do what activists tell them to do?

Queer Theory breaks everything.

The discussion about this on the doctors' subreddit is interesting. The consensus seems to be that this is a waste of time, it is going against evidence-based medicine and that the BMA should focus on improving working conditions for its members, not getting involved in identity politics. So it does seem that it is an activist fringe that is driving this.

Is 'Empirical Evidence' in the room with us right now?

On a serious note I am genuinely flabbergasted that DOCTORS, actually scientifically trained people, would believe in all this stuff.

GI has to be one of the most successful campaigns ever run. The previous great work of Stonewall meant that they were firmly embedded and ready to mobilise in every organisation with any power. I remember in the late 90s/early 00s looking for work, and being reassured if the org carried a Stonewall logo. I guess it happens when organisations seemingly become above reproach.

So I assume Dr Emma & Laura combined have been banging on and on and well here we are!

Also:

-Ability to challenge and respond constructively to policy proposals produced by government, NHS England or other stakeholders, based on analysis of evidence, options considered, risk and benefits of proposals.

( Laura Russell) Her role is primarily a policy making one.

It isn’t even young people we are talking about. You can’t block puberty unless you are treating a child.

According to her profile, her skills are:

– Experience of development of open and evidence-based policy in health or health-related issues
– Ability to present policy reports (in writing and orally) to a variety of internal and external audiences
– Ability to influence highly articulate and challenging individuals, using expertise, tact and diplomacy
– Ability to form and maintain strategic relationships with counterparts in stakeholder organisations
– Personal resilience - needs to ‘own’ policy reports/proposals and withstand challenges from elected members and external stakeholders

This is so true.

posted by someone on a thread by DNK. Stonewall link again.

This sits within a wider context of different advocacy groups stating that the only valid expertise is that coming from 'experts through experience'.

Medicine is based on scientific principles and whilst service users are consulted, they do not determine treatment.

Cass argues for these principles to be upheld across all areas of medicine, including gender medicine. The messaging from the BMA is unclear. They seem to be conflating issues between the power service users should have and the validity of Cass's review.

When you talk about 'trans healthcare' what you are really talking about is confused and distressed young people who have been brought up with ( and encouraged into by responsible adults) the concept that it is possible to be born in the wrong body -and have been led to believe that taking chemical substances, not naturally suited to that body, will somehow rectify that.

This is scandalous - especially in the light of recent revelations about people, even children and babies, having been subject to medical experiments without their or their parents consent and knowledege, leading to future ill health and even death.

The appropriate healthcare for mental and emotional issues is mental and emotional talking therapies.

Absolutely! We are used to holding doctors up as beacons of integrity and professionalism, but in recent years a lot of the shine has come off, and from some nurses too. Not all doctors and nurses are equal; some are not really suited to their job; some are neglectful of their duties; some are downright hostile to patients; others do not maintain an approprioate level of professionalism.

I once had an appointment to see a consultant dermatologist, over a mosquito bite that had that had not fully healed ( I was bitten when in Rome on holiday). I knew that was what the issue was but didn't understand why this had happened and was it an issue. I overheard the consultant telling her junior ( both actually very young) that " You don't get mosquitos in Rome". I couldn't quite believe it!

Just having a high status- level job or profession and/or earning a good living does not make someone automatically widely engaged, critically reflective or independent of mind. People can perform all kinds of roles and occupations, and do so through the type of learning that comes from job specific repetitive behaviours and routines - but that type of intelligence is not necessarily transferred to any other area of their life.

Someone on TwiX commenting on Streeting's thread about the PB ban talked about how dogmatic and bull-headed they had been in their youthful activism, how they can still be proud about what they were involved with even though glad they've matured (I think they said Sec 28 and Poll Tax?).
It got me thinking about the social impact of all this which I've never considered before, what will happen for all those idealistic, right-on activists who really do believe they've been on the right side of history? Even young people who don't get very involved, just generally have an idea of what the "right" thing to think is. What will the effect on them be when e.g. big lawsuits happen for people who were given PBs or x-sex hormones as children?
I wonder if it won't make for a more conservative generation, or perhaps more cynical, embittered?

Fingers crossed that this will finally crack the glue and allow serious conversation about trans healthcare to resume without every other comment becoming an endless spiral of accusations that one or more participants did not read the Cass Review.

@FlirtsWithRhinos - yes indeed !