Sue Evans's court case against GIDS

[archery2]

I have written about this twice but both of the threads have disappeared. The second time I tried hard not to offend Mumsnet - even asking them simply to remove the wrongspeak in order to save me the fag of retyping the message again.

Well anyway: Sue Evans and an anonymous mother of an autistic 15 year old girl are taking GIDS to court over their puberty blocker treatment. Their ultimate goal is to convince the court that the blocker should only be implemented when a court has given its permission - ie it would be a case by case thing of going through the courts.

I'm probably going to mess up now, but taking the NHS to court is expensive and they are seeking financial contributions via a well-known income-seeking website that sounds a bit like Cloud-Trust-Hiss

Also reported in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/test-case-on-child-gender-treatment-thpsnlv8r?shareToken=c9df878be36f659fe8c38315b10b7e3e

Great article in the Times (thanks for the link Igneo) excellent that it mentions the crowdfunding.

I want to know how the professional bodies and the GMC (who regulate doctors practice) and also the BMA medical ethics committee (who set policy for doctors who are BMA members) will respond to this case. Isn’t part of the problem the lack of proper professional ethical guidance for doctors and psychologists and other relevant professional groups, which also takes into account the available evidence base on risk for patients?

By ethical guidance I mean this should be guidance which privileges informed consent, encourages research participation and which requires doctors to be making their patients a decent and defensible proposal for their treatment in the first place. All to be preceded and accompanied by careful mental health support etc. Medical and surgical approaches to only offered to patients aged 25 and above who have attained fully matured adult cognition of risk and benefit.

Patients will really not be helped by professional guidance that only offers their health care teams an authoritarian political mantra based on Stonelaw as a basis for treating patients.