Helen Webberley

[Signalbox]

Looks like Helem Webberley's substantive case has finally been listed for 26th July 2021

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

"Afternoon evidence on Day 6 starts with SJ questioning witness, Professor Peter Hindmarch [PH], a paediatric endocrine consultant."

Thank you signalbox

Day 7 Morning session tweets (by @StoatlyL) start here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1422471678857261067

"Proceedings start at 9.30am with Dr Walker (Dr W) scheduled to give evidence this morning and Dr Patel in the afternoon."

Representing Helen Webberley: Mr Ian Stern, QC (IS).

GMC representative: Mr Simon Jackson, QC (SJ)

This is quite damning:

Evangelical Language. And further upthread the dr giving evidence doesn't feel they've seen some letters before.

Yes. Sounds very generic doesn't it?

Dr W - Lack of header, name, which practice, who is it to and whose record? Data quality standard is good in the practice.

It feels unusual right from the start.

Sounds like the private GenderGP was using the NHS as a free prescribing and testing service. Is this usual for private practice?

"Dr W - what is screaming in my mind is - how old is Pt B?

Why are we even getting on to prescribing andronysing treatment when the letter doesn't even say how old.

The letter suggests “we” prescribe - who do you mean by we - you - or us? And I would ask for an NHS shared care agreement"

GP practices are nearly all private businesses where the partners take a profit share (the way the nhs was set up). As a result they are normally pretty hot on who pays for what so it would be odd for them to take on the cost of blood tests etc from a private practitioner without some consideratiob of who pays.

@Tibtom

Sounds like the private GenderGP was using the NHS as a free prescribing and testing service. Is this usual for private practice?

It's quite unusual, though it sometimes happens that after a private consultation a GP will receive a letter asking if they'd consider continuing a longterm treatment on the NHS. Sometimes this is completely appropriate, if it's a licensed treatment for a condition that has been properly diagnosed and is normally treated in general practice.

For something as specialised as puberty blockers or cross sex hormones, a GP should only be asked to prescribe in conjunction with a robust and detailed shared care agreement with the specialist involved. Such agreements are quite common in the NHS. Prescribing and administering GnRH analogues or testosterone to adults for their licensed indications is often subject to shared care agreements. It would be a brave GP who would take on the prescription of these drugs for the purpose of gender reassignment in children.

Could this GP, Dr W, get in trouble too?

Seems that Dr Patel is next up. Dr Patel is Pt C’s GP.

If Dr W is found to have prescribed drugs outside their product licence at the request of a patient/parent and a private practitioner without having ascertained the medical credentials of the practitioner, the appropriateness of the drug for the patient and, in the case of a child and the safeguarding aspects of the situation, and/or if they do not personally have the training and expertise to prescribe the medication and monitor its effects, I can imagine that the GMC might take an interest despite Dr W not being the person on trial.

@Tibtom

Could this GP, Dr W, get in trouble too?

It is unlikely I think. Dr Walker is one of the GDC's witnesses so it would be unusual for them to call a witness who they consider to have acted wrongly to the point that there was misconduct. I'm not finding the tweets very easy to follow but the evidence of Dr W appears to be in relation to the flaws in the referral letter and shared care agreement.

Sorry GMC not GDC.

The @MPTS_hearing tweets are more comprehensive and easy to follow. They must have a professional tweeter I think!

Danial Webb has a view regarding who is doing the tweeting.
I can think of a few suspects though someone on twitter suggested the husband which seems a strong possibility.

twitter.com/danialwebb/status/1422574477045551105?s=21

They also seem to have blocked quite a few people who have never previously interacted with them, including me.

But I'm not blocked by Helen Webberley, so it would seem the person behind @MPTS is using a-block list.

Yes I’m blocked too but if I sign out of twitter I can follow. They don’t appear to be misrepresenting what’s being said.

twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1422669898304659457

A heartfelt view from Stoat who is tweeting from the tribunal today.

So much has broken down for us to get where things are now. It must be quite distressing and frustrating to sit through this and try and make sense of what has been happening.

These Webberlys don't seem to have grasped the amount of doodoo that is surrounding their silo.

Remarkable, really.

Day 8 tweets from @tribunaltweets here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1422834218309193728

"This is Day 8 on 4 August 2021 and the focus in on past inspections & enforcement action.

The first witness today is Liam Stratton from the CQC.

This afternoon, Rhys Jones Head of Escalation and Enforcement at Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) gives evidence."

Also Day 8 tweets from @mpts_hearing here...

twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing/status/1422851715775205379

Be aware this is likely a trans activist account. You may need to log out of your twitter account to read them.

I can think of a few suspects though someone on twitter suggested the husband which seems a strong possibility.

I would put money on it.

The Glinner Update has just posted about that mysterious Twitter account

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/shenanigans-at-the-webberley-hearing?r=hul36&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy