BMA votes for gender recognition via witness statement, to receive healthcare in services aligned to their identity and under 18s to access healthcare based on consent

[stumbledin]

on Tuesday doctors supported a motion at the BMA’s annual general meeting which called on the Government to allow transgender and non-binary individuals to gain legal recognition of their gender by a witnessed sworn statement. ...

The BMA motion also affirmed the www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/action-aid-embroiled-trans-row-declaring-no-thing-biological/ right of transgender and non-binary individuals to access healthcare and “live their lives with dignity” including having their identity respected.
Two clauses of the motion - which called on the Government to support the witnessed sworn statement model and to ensure under-18s are able to access healthcare in “line with existing principles of consent” - were both passed by narrow margins.

The motion also called for trans people to be able to receive healthcare in settings appropriate to their gender identity and ensure trans healthcare workers were able to access facilities appropriate to the gender they identify as.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/15/trans-people-should-free-change-gender-without-medical-diagnosis/

to ensure under-18s are able to access healthcare in “line with existing principles of consent”

I'm worried that what they mean by this is Gillick-competent to ask for puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery.

I hope when the shit hits the fan (as it will do) they get their arses sued for that one. They know. The Tavistock whistle blowers have been front page news in the Times. They know. They can't pretend they didn't realise what the consequences would be. They are knowingly violating the principle of "first do no harm" to get woke fucking brownie points.

Gillick competence is there to save girls from having to live with the life-long consequences of a failure of contraception. It is not there so that girls have to live with the life-long consequences (osteoporosis, infertility, double mastecomies) of some woke twat in a white coat deciding to medicalise their pubertal confusion about their bodies and their internalised misogyny due to the porn-soaked culture they're surrounded by.

I believe in law that young people 16-17 have the same rights to consent (and refuse) treatments as adults. The starting point is that anyone is presumed to be competent to consent unless there is significant evidence to the contrary.

Gillick competency is for the under 16s and although it was originally for contraception the principles are for anything. ‘Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.’

So whilst I do not agree with the sentiments of this motion I’m not sure this bit actually changes much. And anyway it is just the BMAs view

I don’t think the ARM is the place to debate complex and contentious motions like this, which clearly need more time and measures debate

BMA recommends that vulnerable, ill women, partially dressed, frightened, in pain, and often unconscious, be required to share wards with males, at the males’ request.

And for those women's request to be ignored and overturned, again at the male request. Which is quite basic sexism.

Some of those women will themselves or at the compulsion of family members, be forced to discharge themselves against medical advice as unable to remain in that situation.

Some women - mostly from already vulnerable situations and groups - will not access essential and life saving health care if they cannot be guaranteed a female hcp. Why should this be their lot because of a male request? Why do male feelings matter enough to not only ignore women but put them at risk of exclusion from essential medical care?

Doesn't the Drs oath and code of practice contain something about a requirement to practice fairly and equally? To care about patient need? To be understanding of diversity and vulnerability as it affects female people, and to care about female access to health care?

Basing this on the medical professionals I've met in my life, I can't believe they've thought this through, or applied this to actual practice.

Agree. There were only 3 speakers against for 2 minutes each and the muffled bloke. 6 minutes opposing a contentious motion with the other side saying "women will be fine" "puberty blockers will be fine" "detransitioners are no different to anyone else who changes their mind" is not enough especially when the diversity theme is being heavily lauded from the chair.

Almost all unions in the UK have adopted similar pro-self-ID motions, so this isn't wholly unexpected. The fact that this one was a close vote on two issues makes it better than most, because there was next to no dissent with many other unions.

The BMA briefing even mentioned that patients who identify as trans must still be able to access screenings appropriate for their sex, so that's quite sensible.

It's the complete dismissal of women's rights campaigners arguments as the mere opinions of "some cis people" that is truly pathetic. The discussion has moved on enormously since those other unions voted in 2018 and 2019, and to dismiss women asserting their legal rights as expressing an opinion and not fact in the context of medical treatment where protecting the dignity, privacy and safety of female patients should be a matter of course is astonishing.

But it's the motion on the under 18s that could prove bothersome. Arguing now for Gillick competence to be respected as the measure of whether children ought to be allowed to access irreversible, damaging and life-altering - but not life-saving - treatments is irresponsible and negligent. Never a good look for medical professionals. Especially given that there is a paper setting out why informed consent is impossible in this area, there's an impending review of the entire approach, there's the changed NHS advice on puberty suppression and there are upcoming legal challenges about the treatment of children who identify as trans. At this point the motion itself is ignorant and ethically unsound.

From what you are say Stoned Roses, there is no requirement that the people voting on or proposing a motion have any particular expertise in that area?

I didn’t realise the NHS was so flush. Can I ask for a radical new treatment to reverse aging then?

Surely the twits can ask but that doesn’t mean that the grown up will let it pass?

@merrymouse

From what you are say Stoned Roses, there is no requirement that the people voting on or proposing a motion have any particular expertise in that area?

That’s absolutely right. Various groups, such as regional groups or med students or junior drs can propose motions. Some are debated at their meetings and then they are taken to the ARM. Obviously there’s not time to debate everything so motions are often grouped together or prioritised. So I could propose something and as long as it was passed locally and caught the eye of the committee it could be taken to the ARM. And passed after a few minutes debate.

To me it’s not the place for unpicking complex, difficult or controversial topics

My point is that it has influence on public policy that is wider than its remit representing members and that, as a result, the public should make it clear when they are unhappy with its direction of travel.

so how do we go about letting them know our opinions.

The NHS is absolutley awash with cash, what it does not have is competence, therefore masses of public money is wasted. Because it is a sacred cow (and I do love that we have the NHS) it means we have difficulty getting it to modernise.

Masses of claims pending, the BMA should concentrate on patient welfare. Rambling ............

To me it’s not the place for unpicking complex, difficult or controversial topics

This thread is very informative!

A bit off topics, but I had assumed that 'BMA approved' meant that an appropriate committee of experts within the BMA had studied and researched a topic.

Is this wrong?

Idiots. Undemocratic idiots. like the motion to the TUC - never put before ordinary members, and how many of us ever get to union branch meetings?

About 250 largely self selected BMA members willing to jump through hoops to get a place at the ARM many professional committee goers voted from an online platform from their living rooms. No committees, no in depth debate. About 10 min of pro motion arguments and 6 minutes against because you couldn't hear 1 guy

@highame

My point is that it has influence on public policy that is wider than its remit representing members and that, as a result, the public should make it clear when they are unhappy with its direction of travel.

so how do we go about letting them know our opinions.

The NHS is absolutley awash with cash, what it does not have is competence, therefore masses of public money is wasted. Because it is a sacred cow (and I do love that we have the NHS) it means we have difficulty getting it to modernise.

Masses of claims pending, the BMA should concentrate on patient welfare. Rambling ............

Please email them - see link I posted above,.

In fairness, the BMA is funded by member subscriptions, so I wouldn't mention NHS funding in your complaint, but please do complain about the impact on women & safeguarding.

Looks like the DM is looking to FWR as a source for articles!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8738269/Transgender-people-allowed-change-gender-without-doctors-consent-UK.html

*Dr Helena McKeown, Chair of the BMA representative body, said: 'The BMA supports transgender and nonbinary individuals' equal rights to live their lives with dignity which includes the right to equal access to healthcare.

'We oppose discrimination of all kinds and are committed to ensuring universal access to healthcare for all on the basis of clinical need.*

I wish she would think about what the word 'discriminate' actually means, and why it is sometimes necessary.

'We oppose discrimination of all kinds and are committed to ensuring universal access to healthcare for all on the basis of clinical need.

I'm sure we all agree. But self-ID has nothing to do with clinical need.

But not discrimination against female people on the basis of culture, faith, disability, trauma, having boundaries...…..

do they ever actually read what they say?

Why do some people here think the BMA isn't a trade union? The BMA states it is one and those of us in it think it is. Which category doesn't it fulfil apart from donating to political parties which are optional for trade unions?

I listened online to the motion evidence yesterday and some of the contentious points I heard were:

If Gillick Competence (or could have said Frazer Guidelines) are breached it will be the "thin end of the wedge" and will lead to restrictions on abortions and contraception.

Studies show what a vulnerable community trans people are (stats given on things such as unemployment and health). The 48% attempting suicide was quoted

The evidence shows that trans people are more likely to be the victims of abuse rather than the perpetrators

Lesbian sex offenders are not excluded from female spaces so trans women shouldn't be either.

@2Rebecca

Why do some people here think the BMA isn't a trade union? The BMA states it is one and those of us in it think it is. Which category doesn't it fulfil apart from donating to political parties which are optional for trade unions?

It's really complicated for historical reasons. It has the legal status of a TU, but is not affiliated to the TUC and also has other constitutional features that arguably prevent it acting as a TU. So many in the TU movement would argue that it is not in fact a TU, and the BMA itself has wavered over the years as to whether or not it describes itself as a TU.

However, the point I was making above was more to do with its unusual remit, with regard to non-members. In different respects, it is both more and less than a TU.

www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/uncategorised/in-light-of-the-sexism-scandal-the-bma-needs-a-wholesale-culture-shift/

T

"And yet it moves..." -- Galileo

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4025722-Spike-in-stillbirths-caused-by-lockdown This is sex mattering in medicine.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4022421-The-sex-of-the-child-should-not-go-on-the-birth-certificate Thread of reasons why sex should remain on the birth cert.

It is outright frightening that medical doctors are spouting this shit.

Lesbian sex offenders are not excluded from female spaces so trans women shouldn't be either.

No lesbian sex offender has left her victim pregnant because her biology does not allow it. The penis can be used as a rape weapon to forcibly impregnate a female victim, regardless of the perp's gender identity. This is why some spaces should be sex-segregated.

I feel like I am listening to a broken record, with the same bullshit "women do it too" coming over and over again.

Now we know why the BMA has not responded to certain complaints.
This is sinister.