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

I really don’t want to derail but @FlyingOink that is a gross generalisation. All doctors, including GPs have to demonstrate ongoing CPD and those of us who have taken additional exams/diplomas after completing our GP training and membership exams have to demonstrate our ongoing competency in those areas through regular audit.
I’m now going to present a talk to GPs on Long Covid (having set up a service for patients with this that didn’t exist 12 months ago) then do a teaching session with my trainee before working late to provide Covid vaccinations to my patients.

Sorry for the derail but I’m getting really fed up of all the GP bashing generally at the moment. The vast majority of us are working our arses off and the constant narrative that we’re lazy, overpaid and don’t stay up to date is really getting to me.

Can you explain what it means?

Additional links within the links:

However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children.

feweek.co.uk/2021/03/27/why-are-numeracy-skills-in-adults-still-so-low/

www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk/about/what-numeracy/what-do-adult-numeracy-levels-mean

healthliteracy.geodata.uk/

@FlyingOink

Gender incongruence is similar to a request for birth control. Do they fulfil the criteria for medical intervention. It's not my job to diagnose their gender identity. That's genuinely shocking

Using that logic, I should be able to go to my GP and say I am in lots of pain and be given highly addictive opiates to kill the pain without any exploration of whether or not I have broken my leg (or anything else)!

An adequate, or decent knowledge of statistics is rare even among professionals when it's not part of their academic course.

Many doctors have a very poor grasp of statistics as discussed in this paper in the BMJ.

A glance at the literature shows a shocking lack of statistical understanding of the outcomes of modern technologies, from standard screening tests for HIV infection to DNA evidence. For instance, doctors with an average of 14 years of professional experience were asked to imagine using the Haemoccult test to screen for colorectal cancer. The prevalence of cancer was 0.3%, the sensitivity of the test was 50%, and the false positive rate was 3%. The doctors were asked: what is the probability that someone who tests positive actually has colorectal cancer? The correct answer is about 5%. However, the doctors' answers ranged from 1% to 99%, with about half of them estimating the probability as 50% (the sensitivity) or 47% (sensitivity minus false positive rate). If patients knew about this degree of variability and statistical innumeracy they would be justly alarmed.

www.bmj.com/content/327/7417/741

Just goes to show a lot of GPs don't bother keeping their knowledge up to date. They often make way more money than specialists too.

Sorry for the derail, but that is just not true. Several of my friends are GPS and they not only have to keep doing professional training, they also want to stay-up-to-date on new research and developments. Yes, some take more interest in one area over another, others are almost forced to it by the realities of their surgery (mine only has one female GP and as many female patients see her about women's health issues, she knows more about it than her male colleagues. Another one is a keen sportsman and has a greater interest in sports injuries.)

Some GPS are a disappointment, sure, but that's true in any profession. The majority of GPs are hardworking and care for their patients.

Wow, those threads.

SJ: clarifying, if a patient seeks to go through private care, they must expect to pay for that treatment and referrals.

DRW: yes.

SJ: did you have a dialogue with patients about whether they needed an independent view on treatment?

DRW: I was able to provide that specialist care and treatments.

SJ: did not answer the question. Did you routinely tell patients this is my view but would you like the view of a specialist?
DRW. No because that wasn't my view.
SJ: did you take the view that you were an appropriate specialist? DRW: I was an appropriate doctor to provide that care?
SJ: Did you tell them they could get the care free through the NHS/GIDS?
DRW: I took the view that I was able to provide the best care and perhaps better care than NHS/GIDS.
SJ: do you accept that your patients were entitled to access care from a reasonably competent specialist?
DRW: yes.
SJ: looking at the timeline of your practice. When did you first prescribe hormones or blockers?
DRW: I don't recall when I first prescribed them.
SJ: what was the age of that person?
DRW: I don't have any records and cannot recall.
...
SJ: in terms of your assessment of competence, you assessed yourself?
DRW: yes, I determined that I was competent to provide that care.
SJ: Not an assessment from a third party professional?

DRW: an independent self appraisal. I discussed with lay colleagues and charities.
DRW: I spoke with colleagues and developed networks, including Susie Green. Did not include experienced clinicians because there is a paucity of experienced clinicians. There was no network of such clinicians.

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440267067286949899

She kept no records, she self assessed herself for competence, she appraised herself 'independently'.

Incredible.

I would read that as the level of numeracy expected for a 9 year old according to the national curriculum.

But I would expect that to be based on some sort of average attainment of real 9 year olds. Otherwise why is it 'expected'?

Thanks for the links EmbarrassingAdmissions. I'll stop derailing and have a look at them.

Indeed. I could not have said that out loud about myself in her situation. But I guess all that's left is to brazen it out?

Incredibly brazen. Speaks to her zealousness I suspect.

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]Can you explain what it means?

Additional links within the links:

However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children.

feweek.co.uk/2021/03/27/why-are-numeracy-skills-in-adults-still-so-low/

www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk/about/what-numeracy/what-do-adult-numeracy-levels-mean

healthliteracy.geodata.uk/[/quote]
Just one more reply to this, and then I think we need to start another thread if this needs further discussion.

However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children.

Unfortunately, that looks like a misuse of statistics as well as being numerically innacurate according to the figures on the ONS website. Ironic in an article about numeracy.

I can't find all the figures for 2021, so I'm using 2019 figures (not very different for overall population).

Total population: 67m
Adult (over 16) population: 54m
Working age population (16-64): 42m

17m is 31% of total adult population and 40% of working age population. Some of the people with poor numeracy will be older people (it doesn't say that the 17m are all working age), so the most honest figure from the stats is 31%, not 49%. It's a misuse of statistics to use a figure obtained from the entire adult population then present that as a percentage of the working-age population (which even then has been miscalculated).

21st Sept
Thread 6

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440305670444642310

HW ... "We don't discuss transsexual and we don't refer to 'desired gender' because we now know that gender is innate."

I wish SJ asked her how we know that gender is innate

If it is innate, how do they explain detransitioners? They were mistaken and the doctors too?

Actually, I see where that claim takes her. If it is the patient who diagnoses him- or herself, and the doctor merely facilitates transition, then the doctor is off the hook if the patient later realises transitioning is wrong for them.

21st Sept
Thread 7

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440317285277650962

@CharlieParley

If it is innate, how do they explain detransitioners? They were mistaken and the doctors too?

Actually, I see where that claim takes her. If it is the patient who diagnoses him- or herself, and the doctor merely facilitates transition, then the doctor is off the hook if the patient later realises transitioning is wrong for them.

Yes exactly. Not her job to diagnose because GI is innate means that it is impossible for her to get it wrong.

It does all kind of fit - she's quite indignant at the GMC messing with her operation, and is not terribly interested in "medical" stuff, and doesn't believe they should be interfering.

She doesn't see this as medicine. She's just giving people children the drugs they want.

Consistent in her belief she is above the law, better than the NHS and other clinicians and has no need for 2nd opinions, evidence or responsibility.

Innate and potentially fluid. And the potentially permanent life altering effects and side effects? Where is it we hear the phrase 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem'?

but then we get right back to the fact that if it is "innate" and independent of physical bodies then why do the physical bodies have to be medicated to more closely match that of the other sex?

Natural, normal and innate? or psychological mismatch with body which needs to be corrected? If the latter why not try talking therapies to correct the mismatch before resorting to medicating?

There is no logic to her position 🤷🏼‍♀️

DRW: some stop puberty blockers to try out their birth gender because it's easier to live as a cis-gendered person. So there isn't an unnatural progression from blockers to affirmation hormones.

She's forgotten that "gender is innate" here hasn't she? Surely if she thinks that a person's gender identity is innate you can't just try out a different one just because it's easier.

@MonsignorMirth

Thanks for keeping this going. I saw today's Twitter thread but it is hard to keep up with what's what. I hope if this ever ends it will be written up clearly!

Many more thanks here too.

It is hard to pull together the twitter threads and such a marathon enquiry.

Much appreciated.

DRW: don't want to give the impression that can undertake the role of every potential person in a multi-disciplinary team. But I can deal with a straightforward case where there is no psychological problems. My role is to assess the suitability of for medical treatment

Why would somebody with no health ot psychological problems be looking for medication? Or need medical treatment? This just makes no sense.

There is no logic to her position

I think the 'logic' is driven by whatever is lucrative at the time.

I don't know, Ova. From what she's saying here I think it's driven more by zealotry and an arrogant belief in her own infallibility.