Streeting says puberty blocker trial is ethical

It is because he is a trans activist and has been for years.

Which is why I think he has said " at heart" rather than just " ethical". If the intention of the trial is to show that puberty blockers cause damage and do not have an overall positive benefit in the long run then their discontinuation would then have a firm evidential basis.

So, he means " Ethical at heart" in the most pragmatic of ways.

Streeting is responsible and I wonder why he’s so weak on saying no.

I work in a field "adjacent" to clinical trials, so I know something about that, but I'm not an expert and I'm happy to be corrected.
The stress on free, informed consent is very strong: I doubt you could legally bind a patient not to sue.
However, associated to a trial, there is a costly insurance that should cover all the possible side effects, but I'm familiar with treatments with short term toxicity , so I don't know how far in the future the cover goes.

It's a disgrace that they haven't been forced to supply that data. It should be thoroughly examined and assessed before considering any fresh trial. And if there are howls about "data protection" it should be pointed out very firmly that it's far less unethical to cough up the old data than to create a new cohort of underage human guinea-pigs.

Good point.

So when these poor recruits (and their likely confused and partially reassured parents**) finally realise that their involvement in this trial was simply to act as data points, there is no guarantee of support for what will highly likely be a (shortened) lifetime of medical dependency just to keep their bodies functioning.

** It's easy to imagine that these parents must be stupid or somehow leading the way. Having been a lost parent in this mess about 3 years ago, I leant on the NHS as the source of truth. Thankfully at that time they openly said that the impact of PBs on the developing teenage brain was unknown. Screenshot and link below.

This information was what stopped us from saying yes to our daughter's request for them, even though we knew nothing else about gender identity at that time. I would hope that my critical thinking would have kicked in had we been in the same position with her distress and mental health breakdown now in 2025, but I can completely understand why parents of children who are caught in the grip of this would place their trust in a trial that is run by the NHS.

Archive of NHS advice on PBs:
https://archive.ph/LwIm3

Screenshot ⬇️

Yes the data linkage study of those who had already received blockers.

Which the clinics refused to comply with and the government haven't intervened 🙄

We could also have tests on monkeys as to the long term effects on brains/ bones/ cancer rates etc. All we have, AFAIK, is a short term study on spatial awareness of sheep (they got worse and it didn't get better after stopping pbs).

Going straight to humans is unheard of.

I think she did. I am being a bit lazy as I should probably go back and read the case report again.

Retrospective. We have a sizeable cohort who've graduated into adult gender services from the Tavi, Gender GP & allied trades. Most will still be NHS patients, ie not moved abroad. Their records should be collated, anonymised & analysed before we start giving any more kids GnRHas all because some Dutch men were sad that they didn't look feminine enough - the entire "lifesaving" BS is a post-hoc invention.

Not everyone quite understands the distinction between "passed by an ethics committee" & "ethical". Sure, the distinction ought not to be there but it's 2025 & a lot of stuff is broken.

Even those recruiting to the trial feel uncomfortable about it... and yet it keeps getting pushed right from the top.

Didn't Cass recommend that a review/study of previous patients should be undertaken before any trials of puberty blockers started

Sorry, I was asking whether PP felt the Cass recommendation of a trial of PBs was for a different type of trial. Obviously whether people think there should be a trial of PBs or not is a totally different question.

.... and everyone in the trial could wear whatever they like (as long as it's not indecent), play with whatever toys they like and pursue whatever hobbies they like. Obviously all within the means of their family budget and logistical commitments etc.

Indeed.

Because there is already evidence of significant harm associated with stopping puberty, because "first do no harm" is an important principle and because the desired outcome (happy, healthy children who have overcome gender dysphoria) does not require a specific method to achieve this, the only viable trial in the first instance is talking therapy.

One group could undertake social transition and be affirmed in their identity throughout the trial. The other could continue to use the pronouns associated with their sex throughout the trial.

We know they are effective, as they do indeed block puberty. And are not 'fully reversible' in any way. So very effective at what they do.

Before one trials drugs that sterilise a person, one might ponder on why they are treating 'playing with the wrong toys' instead of just, letting kids play with whatever toys they want.

Or rational and a politician who can make decisions against harming dc in a trial.

How do you think a better trial determining whether PBs are effective would look? Genuine question - not intended to be loaded!

I wonder if anyone actually has accountability here. When some of these children sue as adults, with permanently prepubescent bodies and brains, I assume they'll get some kind of government-paid compensation.
But Streeting will no longer be in the hot seat and he'll simply have disappeared off with his "I was following experts" nonsense. Nobody will ever need to admit accountability. It'll just be one of those somber state apologies.

I really hope that this can be stopped before any child is given his or her first puberty blocker.

I heard him too and felt the same. He said he understood why people had grave concerns but felt he had to follow the Cass review recommendations.

Covering his arse, then.

When the trial is eventually exposed as at best useless, at worst harmful, he can say "Yes, I was nominally in charge, but I was just following orders the experts".

Well he can share the conclusions of the ethics committee then, can't he? If he's so sure.

Correct. Although I did read somewhere that she is apparently delighted that this trial is going ahead.

However, it could be that this is a misquote and that perhaps she was delighted that a trial is going ahead. If she isn't backing this trial, she needs to speak up.