Health board ‘misled young patients’ over puberty drug, Times Scotland

[Igneococcus]

I don't see that linked yet:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/00b89968-8f41-11eb-ab4d-f4c45359834c?shareToken=93d583609c8960e1c85a73afdce0f6c1

I wonder how many people consent to this would say no to their child getting a tattoo

Just as an aside, Sandyford originally said they expected to have an updated version posted online in a week. That was last June...

It's the year of covid, time doesn't exist.

As a pp mentioned as soon as trans is mentioned anything else goes out the window, why is the trans community seemingly so happy to accept this. Surely there should be a strive for the best treatment and one that is also knowingly safe.

@NecessaryScene1

to say they are 'fully reversible' is plainly not true

It is true, but only in a very specific technical sense about the treatment.

The treatment is a "puberty blocker". When you stop taking it, it stops blocking puberty.

That is "reversible".

Doesn't necessarily mean you will go through normal puberty when you stop taking it though. You likely would if you stopped early enough - if it was precocious puberty treatment - but if you stopped at 17/18?

So, it's technically true, but totally misleading to a layperson, like parents.

Looking at wiktionary, for reversible, we have:

1. Able to be reversed.
2. (of clothing) Able to be worn inside out.
3. (chemistry, of a chemical reaction) Capable of proceeding in either direction.
4. (physics, of a phase change) Capable of returning to the original state.
5. (thermodynamics) Capable of returning to the original state without consumption of free energy and increase of entropy.

It's not shown there, but what we're talking about is a medical sense akin to entries 3-5.

But it's not the common usage 1 - "we can undo what we did and carry on as if it never happened".

Good distinction.

The language of ‘pausing’ puberty is also massively misleading and implies if it is ceased, puberty will pick up where it left off and the end point will be the same. I’m sure the NHS don’t use that word, but that’s how it is often referred to by certain groups. Scary that guidance has been removed and not replaced, because concerned parents will naturally turn to such groups in its absence.

FWS have updated their blog post on Sandyford with the link to their full FOI that the Times articles was based on. Interesting to see that Glasgow health board have shown ho hesitation in stating they have absolutely no intention of reconsidering use of puberty blockers in light of the Keira Bell ruling.

There's also another FOI showing the complete mess of data collection at Sandyford, who seem unable to even count the number of children coming through their doors.

forwomen.scot/28/12/2019/sandyford/

the effects of [puberty blockers] are considered completely reversible

Puberty blockers are specifically used to 'normalise' age related and puberty related bone growth in cases of precocious puberty, so the idea that you can just pause puberty indefinitely according to a patient's wishes, and that this is reversible as soon as the drug effects wear off, sounds illiterate.

Yes Merry it’s like saying getting off the train is reversible without mentioning that the train may leave the station before you get back on