Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June

Plus, it's possible that a lot of them won't be around when the scandal hits. We won't know what's happened to these children for another 20 years maybe, after they have "grown up " and tried to "detransition" and tried perhaps to have families of their own. Then the lawsuits will start.

I don't know about that. The first detrans lawsuits in the US are featuring very young people. So this cohort could start suing as early as 10 years from now. Moreover, there's a whole previous cohort out there, which we know already has its detransitioners, so technically it's only a matter of time now until one of them decides to sue.

Most parents will just see formerly distraught children who haven't had what they've been told that they want, turn into "happy" kids because they have their candy now.

But the kids won't be happy, will they? Not for long, anyway, since the puberty blockers won't solve their real problems.

Politicians rarely think that far ahead. They're wedded to short-termism and whatever keeps them their seat now.

Plus, it's possible that a lot of them won't be around when the scandal hits. We won't know what's happened to these children for another 20 years maybe, after they have "grown up " and tried to "detransition" and tried perhaps to have families of their own. Then the lawsuits will start.

I'm hoping that many parents will see the harms being done to their children's bodies and remove them from the trial, but I suspect that is a forlorn hope. Most parents will just see formerly distraught children who haven't had what they've been told that they want, turn into "happy" kids because they have their candy now.

And of course there are the parents who want to give their children these drugs... There will be at least a few of those.

This experiment was backed by Cass, who proposed it and supports it. This gives the MPs cover. I suspect that many are only backing it because Cass is saying it should happen, even though the Labour government at one point tried to stop it (although it's not quite clear what the government's position is this week, it keeps changing).

Are you kidding you would give drugs that are deigned to castrate men to a child? Read this sentence back a few times please, and try to keep an open mind.

My comparison to Mengel was not made lightly.

Oh this is terrible. Those poor children who have been let down by the adults who should have been looking after their best interests

Were the votes subject to the whip? Is this why voting was mainly on party lines? I don't see why Labour would want to tie themselves so firmly to what some of them must realise is going to be a future medical scandal

I get that exposing Labour is partly why Badenoch called the debate, but I suspect this vote is going to be a real burden for Labour over time. 270 Labour dimwits voted for this Mengelian experiment, just when they were starting to sound a little more reasonable on the trans issue and Burnham had managed to put a stop to discussion about letting men into women's loos.

Every thing that goes wrong with this trial, they should be blamed for it.

I was considering maybe voting Labour again, but I certainly won't be now.

Am I right in thinking they weren't allowed to mention the pending judicial review? I seem to remember there's a rule against mentioning current court cases.

The trial protocol also shows that the NHS has given up on the detransitioners it has already created. Genspect has long been arguing that the health service has a moral responsibility to complete the data linkage study before exposing a new cohort of young people to the documented harms of blockers. Recommended by the Cass Review, the data linkage study would follow up on what has happened to the estimated 2,000 gender distressed young people who were put on puberty blockers by the disgraced NHS Tavistock Clinic. We know there are harmed patients among them, because some of Genspect’s Beyond Trans service users are detransitioners who were first set on the path to irreversible medical harm by a prescription for puberty blockers issued by the Tavistock. The data linkage study is our only way to secure long-term outcome data, something the trial protocol itself admits PATHWAYS will not provide.
The trial protocol effectively claims that completing the data linkage study is pointless. It sees no benefit in trying to understand the experiences of irreversible medical harm and regret that Beyond Trans service users share with us in our weekly peer support meetings. The Tavistock did not collect ‘standardised data’, and the protocol therefore argues that the data linkage study, “would not provide alternative evidence” about the effects of blockers. This is an implausible and unforgivable excuse. A lack of standardised data does not mean there is no data to learn from at all. The PATHWAYS trial has access to a whopping £10 million in funding. If a mere fraction of that sum were devoted to carefully tracking the trajectories of previous Tavistock patients, we would undoubtedly learn something pertinent about the risks and benefits of proceeding with another puberty blocker trial. The NHS’s refusal to do so, and its reckless drive to place still more children in harm’s way, will be felt as an acute betrayal by detransitioners everywhere.

https://genspect.org/the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial-betrays-vulnerable-young-people/

"Around 2000 children have already been given the blockers; those outcomes should be studied first."

Wow. 2000. And we don't know the outcomes.

Cass believes without a trial young people will continue to get drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes."

It's very common for patients who are addicted to benzodiazepines to ask their doctor to prescribe high doses "because if you don't I'll just buy it from the streets". Doctors generally respond by discussing and documenting the risks and their advice.
Would Cass argue that the doctors should just prescribe, in order to avoid patients getting the drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes"?

100% agree.

I think that the data linkage study should be done first. James Murray says that the NHS is committed to delivering it and that the relevant organisations have been told to provide the data. Yes it might be more limited than a trial, but it also might ultimately mean that no trial needs to be done. Around 2000 children have already been given the blockers; those outcomes should be studied first.

No. You really should read the Cass report.

It makes clear that there’s a gaping hole in the reasoning about why these drugs are being prescribed.

The decision is made to prescribe them, and then lots of stories are made up about why. The ‘time to think’ story is just one of several narratives retrofitted to the prescrbing practice.

Activists are incredibly keen to give these drugs to children, but there is no consistent explanation for why these drugs are the correct treatment for this condition. Which is a basic minimum requirement for prescribing, you’d think.

Ridiculous. So then vote to harm dc with medical trials

Adults are idiots

Well they're all in Hansard now, all their votes have been recorded. Everyone in the future will know exactly who supported this despite the obvious harms being spelled out to them.

I thought Rebecca Paul's contributions were particularly good.

There was also a fair bit of “but you Tories commissioned and accepted the Cass report so ner”. Pathetic.

Really sad. Culpable adults.

During this vote, party lines were largely maintained. Labour MPs voted down the motion to scrap the trial, while the Conservative party and several independent MPs pushed for its outright cancellation

Good question. The quality of the govt’s arguments (sad octogenarian transwoman constituent…) left a lot to be desired.

The time I was prescribed them for endo was horrific, the physical mental and emotional effects of them were devestating and still, over 20 years later, leave me feeling physically sick at the thought of young children being given them.

The premature menopause and osteoporosis are no fun either.

Whilst I oppose the trial I fear it will go ahead. Like @HenriettaSwanLeavitt I am concerned that this is not a longitudinal study as the lifelong impact needs to be documented.

I do wonder if a concession of making it a long term study with key reporting points e.g. 5 years, 10 years etc. maybe more achievable.

God why

IMO Cass believes that the trial will demonstrate some harm, and so most parents (whether their children are on the trial or not) will then stop sourcing the blockers for their children and allow them to experience a normal puberty. She thinks that the parents who continue to demand blockers will self-evidently be the ones whose children are 'true-trans' and so, for them, any harms will be outweighed by the 'benefits'.

However, I think she has been played by the activists who are setting up a trial that will show short term positives while not investigating medium and long-term harms.

Government voted to proceed with the trial 283 to 112.

I hate to be the Godwin making the obvious parallel on this thread, but that protocol was used in the 1940s. Anyone who thinks that "try it and see what happens for shits and giggles" is a robust methodology to replicate today is either equally insane or has some very dark ulterior motive.