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

Also please note I’m using both twitter accounts for summary so the tone sometimes might be a bit skewed!

@Tibtom

And everyone needs to cover their backs so even Dr K who prescribes puberty blockers to 9 year olds when asked about bad side effects says 'it doesn't seem so bad and anyway we monitor closely'

This is becoming more and more evident. All the experts are involved in some way so they can’t be too critical of each other. Even Dr A who doesn’t diagnose or prescribe could lose his reputation if he is too critical. He must have seen a massive increase in the medicalisation of his patients over the last 10 years. He can’t possibly think this is good for asd/adhd youth.

Thanks again @Signalbox - I can't see the other Twitter thread, and I'm finding it super difficult to follow the one I can see.

@ThinkWittyThoughts

Thanks again *@Signalbox* - I can't see the other Twitter thread, and I'm finding it super difficult to follow the one I can see.

No worries. I'm aware that my updates are a bit third hand and both the twitter accounts are obviously also tweeting from their own perspectives but they seem fairly consistent with each other.

Today's Update…

It appears that today was fairly uneventful. No witnesses gave evidence.

Lots of discussion in relation to the new expert witnesses that the defence want to call.

New defence experts are Dr Schumer (paediatric endocrinologist from Uni of Michigan and Dr Walter Pierre Bouman from the Notts Centre for Trans Health.

Issues are that Bouman reports are not yet written so the GMC’s experts have not had the opportunity to comment on them.

SJ isn’t happy that the docs are partially redacted and also he still doesn’t have access to some linked documents in HWs statement (paywalled). Defence case is still not fully disclosed. There are issues around admissibility of new experts. SJ says it is unlikely that the tribunal will finish on time.

There is some suggestion that Dr Schumer has given his opinion on something that it is for the panel to decide rather than offering evidence to advise the tribunal (intriguing!). Also SJ says the GMC is of the view that one of the experts is not a viable expert because he lacks expertise with children.

There is a discussion around whether or not Dr Klink can still resume his evidence tomorrow without the benefit of having seen the evidence of the new experts.

It seems that SJ has agreed to continuing with Dr K on the basis that he can bring him back for further questioning later in the hearing in relation to the new defence expert evidence (if it is allowed)

Resumes tomorrow at 9am with Dr K continuing his expert evidence.

There is some suggestion that Dr Schumer has given his opinion on something that it is for the panel to decide rather than offering evidence to advise the tribunal (intriguing!).

Perhaps he said that the GMC are bigots and Webberley is a saint?

('m very grateful to the live tweeters and to women here for reporting on this but I'm finding it hard to get an idea of how well - or not - it's going.

Does anyone here feel they have a handle on it?

@shesellsseacats

('m very grateful to the live tweeters and to women here for reporting on this but I'm finding it hard to get an idea of how well - or not - it's going.

Does anyone here feel they have a handle on it?

It's really hard to tell. Currently we have only heard from the GMC's expert witnesses in relation to clinical failings. The Defence's expert evidence is likely to back up HW's approach to treating patients. The panel will then have to weigh up which of the experts they prefer and then go through each of the clinical heads of charge and decide if each one is proved or not proved.

The more serious heads of charge (from HW's perspective) are the allegations of dishonesty (hoc 10 - 14, 15 - 17, 18 - 20, 21 - 23) and the allegation that she (her company) is attempting to dodge the UK regulatory framework (hoc 27) and the criminal conviction (hoc 28,29). I don't think we've heard any evidence yet in relation to these (I missed it if we have)

Clinical failings are often considered to be remediable if no other issues. But allegations of dishonesty and avoiding regulation, if proved, is never going to end well.

But allegations of dishonesty and avoiding regulation, if proved, is never going to end well.

I don't understand why the 'avoiding regulation' charge is just an 'allegation'. She was prosecuted in 2018 and found guilty.

hiw.org.uk/healthcare-inspectorate-wales-prosecutes-online-gp

[quote OldCrone]But allegations of dishonesty and avoiding regulation, if proved, is never going to end well.

I don't understand why the 'avoiding regulation' charge is just an 'allegation'. She was prosecuted in 2018 and found guilty.

hiw.org.uk/healthcare-inspectorate-wales-prosecutes-online-gp[/quote]
My understanding is that heads of charge 28 and 29 relate to HW's 2018 conviction and the panel will need to decide whether her fitness to practice is impaired because of the conviction.

But heads of charge 24 to 27 are in relation to Gender GP and the allegation is that she currently operates this company in a way that avoids the regulatory framework of the UK (CQC, HiW and GMC).

25th August.

The cross-examination of Dr Klink continues today.
Dr Klink is a paediatric endocrinologist from Amsterdam Uni Medical Centre. He is one of the GMC’s expert witnesses.

It seems that the UK and Dutch protocols are different to US protocols.

Discussion re Patient A records.
IS sets out Pt A’s case. There is a referral and assessment by UCLH. Only a psychologist and two therapists made assessment. Pt A changed name in 20213 and was living in “stealth”. IS says this is a key element with regard to proceeding with medical treatment. Pt A has a diagnosis of GD and a prescription for PBs. IS asks DrK if he doubts that Pt A has GD. DrK says he does not. IS says that there was no “medical” involvement (i.e. no Dr) in the assessment. Pt A started PBs in Sept 2015. IS asks Dr K if the consent form from Pt A and Pt A’s mother is sufficient consent. Dr K says not on its own. Dr K goes on to say that in adolescent cases there is a two-stage process - therapy and gender affirmation. Both has different consequences and should be considered different processes. They require different and fresh conformation of capacity. IS refers to email from Pt A’s mother. There is concern that there is a delay in prescription of hormones. Mother will do whatever is necessary to protect Pt A. Dr K opines that there is clearly a lot of distress within this family and that the patient is clearly suffering with GD. Another email from Pt A’s mother saying she is prepared to look abroad for testosterone. DK says it is questionable to start testosterone at age 12 and even liberal regimes state a minimum age of 14. DK says that they did not make clear how they came to a decision to prescribe testosterone at age 12. A letter from mother of Pt A notes that he is taking testosterone but has not told the Tavi. Also email from Tavi that notes Pt A is not attending appts as is “too busy”. IS reads account from PtA and their hope that testosterone will resolve mental anguish.

There is a discussion around bone age and rate of maturation and how it is monitored

Patient B
Terrible experience at CAMHS. Felt they were forcing a diagnosis of autism Pt B feels no need for PBs and is ready to start with testosterone. Seems that assessment was completed in one meeting. 5-page shared care plan. Blood tests prior to prescribing and GP confirms counselling has taken place. Pt B is anxious and keen to start testosterone. Half sachet of testogel prescribed. Further testosterone prescribed. IS questions DrK as to whether proper assessment has been made. Dr K says no blood pressure tests or weight measurements and no further psychological assessments.

This is the end of today’s evidence. Dr K will continue to give evidence on 2nd Sept.

GMC have still only had HW’s statements in relation to Pt’s ABC and nothing else. Defence says that HW’s statement should be available by Friday.

Thanks for your hard work

Today the tribunal were due to hear evidence from Dr Dean (former GP and current clinical lead for a GIC, The Laurels in Exeter)

However due to there still being outstanding reports and statements it was decided that the tribunal would adjourn until 10.30 on Tuesday.

Are the panel judiciary? They need to give these people a bollocking because all this should have been sorted, it's really shoddy. Waste of public money and time, bordering on a piss take

@walkingthedog1

Are the panel judiciary? They need to give these people a bollocking because all this should have been sorted, it's really shoddy. Waste of public money and time, bordering on a piss take

No they are not Judiciary. And it isn’t public money. Doctors are self-regulating and the MPTS is funded by the GMC. The funds come from Doctors who pay yearly to be registered with the GMC. It is a very expensive process though and very frustrating when they’ve had so long to prepare. Also if the case goes part heard it’ll probably be months before it can resume.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-weeks-developments-in-the-webberley?r=7oafk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

Hearing adjourned until tomorrow. No reason given.

She is still prescribing- or her minions are.

Trans child (girl wants to be a boy) has just been on BBC Radio Scotland talking about getting hormones from Gender GP. No mention of the tribunal. I have tweeted John Beattie (Drivetime) on about 5.30-5.45.

Child gets online prescription which is fulfilled at a local (Scottish) pharmacy. Going abroad for a double mastectomy to become "authentic" before starting University.

Can this woman be stopped?

Can this woman be stopped?

Probably only if she is sued into bankruptcy or sent to prison.

The BBC shouldn't be allowed to run what is essentially a promotion for Gender GP, especially with Webberley in court.

I tried tweeting the host but crickets. Others could have a go, or put in a complaint.

Does anyone know what has happened the TribunalTweets account? It is currently suspended. Also, Danial Webb's account is locked.

Does anyone have any idea what has happened the past couple of days at the tribunal?

Ooh, don't know, didn't see. Twitter account looks ok now but last tweet is from yesterday? (ppl have screenshotted it being 'temporarily restricted' - not suspended - 'because there has been some unusual activity from this account').

They're back tweeting again but there is no public gallery at the moment.

I haven't had time to pay attention to the hearing over the last week but it seems that the GMC has now closed it's case. However there have been submissions from the defence in relation to HoC 25/26/27 but it's really hard to work out exactly what is going on. The HW twitter is saying that IS has submitted that ALL charges should be dropped due to abuses of process but all I can see are issues around HoC 25/26/27.

Anyone else any the wiser?