Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Helen Webberley

978 replies

Signalbox · 05/07/2021 11:59

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
43
Signalbox · 24/09/2021 10:39

@Tibtom

How can you even begin to address the question of consent without considering the treatment?
The charges in relation to consent appear to be that HW did not make any assessment of the child's capacity to consent. So there is no charges that allege that Pt A/B/C "did not consent".

Instead the Charges allege that HW "did not... assess Pt A/B/C's capacity to consent to treatment" and another charge is that "in the alternative" HW did not "record any assessment of Pt A/B/C capacity to consent"

So the panel do not have to work out whether or not the child consented, just whether or not HW made an assessment OR whether or not she just failed to record any assessment that she did make.

OP posts:
PearPickingPorky · 24/09/2021 12:53

Are the patients A, B and C all children (or now-adults) who regret their transition or think it was the wrong treatment?

Signalbox · 24/09/2021 13:18

@PearPickingPorky

Are the patients A, B and C all children (or now-adults) who regret their transition or think it was the wrong treatment?
No. Patient A is a witness for the defence so presumably they are happy with their treatment and outcome. I think it was stated that Pt A is now 17 years old. The tribunal is supposed to be hearing from Pt A (or Pt A's parent) this afternoon. I don't think there has been any suggestion that patients (A/B or C) have complained that they feel they had the wrong treatment but I haven't paid 100% attention so might have missed something.

I've not seen any mention that Patient's B or C are giving evidence but again it's easy to miss stuff.

All the charges stem from 2016 so Pt C would be around 16 now. Not sure about Pt B.

OP posts:
Signalbox · 24/09/2021 13:23

24th Sept

@tribunaltweets

Thread 1

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1441306332062121988

This @mpts_hearing tweets are moving slightly faster. You may need to log out of your twitter account to read though because many people are blocked.

twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing/status/1441320331432448001

OP posts:
Signalbox · 24/09/2021 13:34

Oh just seen Pt B was 16 in 2016 so would be an adult now.

OP posts:
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 24/09/2021 13:39

But, if Patient A is now 17, and the first contact with HW was in 2016 that means that Patient A was 12 or 13?

So, surely wasn't given testosterone then?

So, does that mean that:
"Following an initial consultation with Pt A on 22nd March 2016" refers to PBs then and a failure to assess prior to prescribing testosterone at a later date?

Am looking at all of DCs trans peers and wondering which one of them is Patient A...

Signalbox · 24/09/2021 14:14

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

But, if Patient A is now 17, and the first contact with HW was in 2016 that means that Patient A was 12 or 13?

So, surely wasn't given testosterone then?

So, does that mean that:
"Following an initial consultation with Pt A on 22nd March 2016" refers to PBs then and a failure to assess prior to prescribing testosterone at a later date?

Am looking at all of DCs trans peers and wondering which one of them is Patient A...

No the date is in relation to her prescribing testosterone. And yes Pt A was 12. HW justified it by saying that Pt A was an identical twin and Pt A's sister had started puberty and so it was necessary for Pt A to start "puberty" (i.e. cross sex hormones) at the same time.

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1440336137822695433

OP posts:
OldCrone · 24/09/2021 14:17

But, if Patient A is now 17, and the first contact with HW was in 2016 that means that Patient A was 12 or 13?

So, surely wasn't given testosterone then?

Webberley has admitted to prescribing testosterone to a 12-year-old girl.

From the Telegraph article I posted a link to earlier:
[GenderGP] confirmed that it has prescribed cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12, and puberty blockers to children as young as 10.

Signalbox · 24/09/2021 14:47

Pt A and Pt A's mother are giving evidence this afternoon but this will be done in private.

OP posts:
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 24/09/2021 17:14

Jesus.

That kid has become menopausal 23 years before their bones are at peak density.

That's not going to end well. And they are acting for the DEFENCE?

Poor Patient A. That's just horrifying.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 24/09/2021 17:21

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Jesus.

That kid has become menopausal 23 years before their bones are at peak density.

That's not going to end well. And they are acting for the DEFENCE?

Poor Patient A. That's just horrifying.

A number of notorious and even infamous doctors have had hundreds of testimonials from grateful and even adoring patients and colleagues. I sometimes wonder how they felt afterwards when the various crimes or breaches of ethics were undeniable.
Signalbox · 24/09/2021 17:27

That kid has become menopausal 23 years before their bones are at peak density.

Also how little data there must be about what will happen to a female who is medicated with testosterone from 12 years old. What with Pt A being an identical twin it would have been an interesting (if morally dubious) case study.

OP posts:
Feelingoktoday · 24/09/2021 17:31

The discussion regarding giving testosterone to girls. As an adult woman going through the menopause I really need some testosterone yet I’m constantly told by my GP that testosterone is not licensed for women as it has not been tested on women and so we do not know the risks. Yet, this gender doctor can / could give - 12 year old girls testosterone.

Do you recall the breast surgeon a few years ago that told women they had breast cancer and he acted like a god. This gender doctor (?) has also played god and I hope she is punished.

KohlaParasanda · 24/09/2021 21:11

@merrymouse

Leaving aside fertility, if long term use of the drugs described as ‘puberty blockers’ isn’t advised for conditions like endometriosis because of side effects, how can they be advised for potentially long term use as a puberty blocker?

I know that they have been used to delay precocious puberty for a while, but that is also controversial because of the long term side effects. It also has a defined end point.

Perhaps HW could argue that more information has come to light since the events dealt with in the tribunal, but it doesn’t seem as though her opinions have changed.

Do GPs usually prescribe these drugs? It seems that for other uses (endometriosis, precocious puberty, prostrate cancer, IVF) it would be prescribed by specialists.

GPs prescribe and administer GnRH analogues for endometriosis and prostate cancer in adult patients, but only after an appropriate specialist has recommended this form of treatment and advised on preparation and dosage. The same applies to injectable testosterone for hypogonadism in males. It would be a brave GP who would take the decision to initiate any of these treatments without specialist input. Adult patients tend not to try to secure GnRH analogues by using emotional blackmail, if anything they tend to be hesitant because of the side effects.

I suppose HW could claim to be a "GP with a special interest" and therefore competent and qualified to initiate treatments that a GP without that particular interest might not initiate.

Tibtom · 24/09/2021 21:31

GPs prescribe and administer GnRH analogues for endometriosis

These can only be prescribed for this use once and for no longer than 6 months due to the acknowledge side effects.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/09/2021 21:46

There was a fair bit about bone scans today in the MPTS_hearing tweets:

Chair: Once hormones start follow up 3-6mths including physical assessments...bone age determination until final height is reached, that's overview of what endo does. What I wanted to ask you is this, did you offer that to patients A B or C when embarking upon endo treatment?

Dr W: In terms of doing bones scan or bloods?
Chair: In terms of ongoing overview Dr K links here, were you offering, you make decision as to what treatment to give & then is there is obligation to continue to monitor in way he is setting out,

Chair: what I'm asking you is did you offer that ongoing treatment when embarked upon hormone therapy? Or the opportunity to initiate?
Dr W: Yes definitely you can see my usual message to Pts was will follow up in 3 months,

Dr W: need to evaluate in terms of progress, satisfaction & also growth in terms of height, weight BP is needed. We did blood tests done by GP or if not GP private testing, so in terms of that was very easy to do, in terms of bones scans there's diff in GP than secondary care,

Dr W: when you're in a hospital setting you have everything at your fingertips, easy to send Pts down corridor. In GP were more used to doing scans & X rays when we need to know specifics. That would have been done as needed basis, in terms of, 2 reasons why might do bone scan
Dr W: one if bone density & important if you're on blockers for some time because by adding in hormones you negate need for scans, looking at guidelines for primary care UCSF their recommendations for bone scans is different to endo soc & reflects accessibility to those.

Dr W: In primary scans would refer to dexa scan. In terms of bone age I respect that's what Dr K does in his clinic a& Prof B did bone age on Pt A, it's almost, it doesn't impact on your care at all, if you look at primary care guidelines for managing condition it's not required.

Dr W: Only Dexa is mentioned in endo society guidelines in relation to bone density rather than predicted high.
Chair: Your answer is you would follow appropriate guidelines, from California as to what is necessary, & you would've been capable by yourself

Chair: or medium of others to carry out necessary checks to monitor treatment?
Dr W: Endo checks are blood tests & radiological tests are scans & X-rays. Didn't arise in thees 3 Pts but I know mothers would say they do bone scan at GIDS & we would talk about the merits & timing

Dr W: if someone needed it then either would ask for GP to arrange or use private hospital & radiologist would report on result. in my work as sexual health Dr with Pts on long term Progesterone this would be something we'd check

Dr W: There was never need to refer but discussion & requests were discussed many times
Chair: Those are questions from tribunal, just seeing If questions arising from our Qs, SJ?
SJ: Chair there are, I note time I have few questions, happy to deal with now or after lunch,

......

SJ: Prescribing to address delayed puberty - you said this in answer to studies 'why is it safe to prescribe in tran context' you said there is lack on longitudinal studies, studies in adults who've been using these longer.

SJ: You say clinical consensus is best practice. Is this what you said?
Dr W: Clinical consensus and best practice is what we should use, this comes from WPATH guidelines, I can go to it if you wanted?

Dr W: it uses sentence 'based on available evidence and expert clinical consensus recommendations are made'. so that's a smaller sentence, that's what I was referring to. In terms of Dexa scans, the need to refer for Dexa scans from parents didn't arise

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/09/2021 21:49

More on bone scans:

Dr W: Again there is difference in guidelines produced by secondary care and primary care in terms of access to investigations. If you look at uni of California which is primary care guidelines pg 685 C5, it says there are potential benefits of baseline bone density,

Dr W: but no benefit prior to blockers & hormones. If factors of osteoporosis baseline screening is recommended. In endo guidelines says what will be required is assessment of prolonged use of blockers in bone density on adolescents. I would do what is indicated,

Dr W: not ever single patient needs bone scan every year on blockers or hormones, in fact Dr OK make point monitoring needs to be relative to what we are trying to achieve, which is a natural puberty, and so measurements are pubertal development.

Dr W: I will address the point of rapid growth because you mention that & it hasn't been addressed. Endo soc guidelines pg 268 in FTM adolescent suppression of puberty may halt growth spurt, slow introduction of androgens may give growth spurt

Dr W: its my position the Pt A had that growth spurt at beginning of his blockers, and I disagree with bone age reported by Prof B.
SJ: When you say you disagree it's from reading those scans?
Dr W: That's from the radiological report.
SJ: That's all Webberley, I mean Dr W

CharlieParley · 24/09/2021 23:11

because by adding in hormones you negate need for scans

The claim she is making here is that if you give cross-sex hormones, the suppression in bone density growth caused by PBs is negated (and, presumably the thought here is that it then rises as it should do in puberty).

The question whether bone density recovers to normal or near normal levels once PBs are discontinued to resume normal puberty or CSH taken is one I attempted the find the answers to last year.

I found one overview paper reviewing PB+CSH longterm effects and that paper said bone density is thought to recover when on CSH. I followed the link. The reference had nothing to say on this at all.

In the end I found 1(!) paper that specifically looked into bone density development after PBs and while on CSH.

The result: CSH did not lead to recovery, on the contrary, it further suppressed bone density.

So if HW is here quoting from actual guidance, I would love to know what evidence that guidance is based on.

(I know the panel is not looking at stuff like this, but that I wanted to pick up on that claim.)

Signalbox · 28/09/2021 19:43

27th Sept
Defence expert witness Dr Vickie Pasterski (VP) gave evidence.
Only one long thread for 27th Sept.

Thread 1
twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1442406812691611649

OP posts:
Signalbox · 28/09/2021 20:49

Dr Pasterski (expert for the defence) gave evidence in the morning

Dr Schumer gave evidence in afternoon. Dr Schumer is a US doctor (expert for the defence)

The @mpts_hearing account is much clearer for these witnesses on 27th Sept.

It seems there is one more witness (Dr Bouman) for the defence and then we will have closing submissions. So should reach end of stage 1 by Friday.

OP posts:
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 28/09/2021 20:51

I wish they live-streamed these (and comparable) hearings. I think they'd be educational for general health literacy and it might help people to understand the scrutiny involved in professionals standards and regulation.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 28/09/2021 21:46

There were some astonishing claims made in the latest session!

A selection of my faves below:

Dr P: I don't think so. Once puberty has started and individual has demonstrated wether they are 15/16/18/22/40 that they are living in preferred gender role and that all indications suggest they should go forward with treatment I would say there's no difference in age.

+++
Dr P: Could you be more clear with that?
SJ: I'm suggesting one has to consider with care what are the options to reduce harm and how that can be achieved, one shouldn't simply consider that medical intervention is the only route to reduce risk of harm

Dr P: I'm not really sure how to answer that, the clinical guidance is that medical intervention is the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria. Are you suggesting there's another method of treatment that doesn't involve Hormone therapy?
++++

SJ: In terms of para 27 you conclude that by saying 'balancing benefits and detrimental effects, short term use of blockers is endorsed in most westerns countries'. What do you mean by short-term, how long is it appropriate to prescribe blockers?

Dr P: Giudelines say no more than 6mths for cis adolescants but 24 for trans individialus, so following guidance between 6-24 months, thats enough time to assess next step.
+++

Dr S: It's hard to speak in absolutes, if you have a situation where a certain medical intervention is needed, for example chemotherapy, and that patient doesn't have ability to understand the diagnosis and risks and benefits for giving or withholding chemo,
Dr S: that pt would still receive that chemo with the team doing their best to explain in order to aid the child in consenting. GD can be viewed in the same light, for some reason their thought of as different, I think thats worth exploring a little bit, but perhaps a child
Dr S: that would benefit in receiving blockers would not have the same level of cognitive ability, but it would be in their best interest to receive treatement
+++

SJ: In context where subject to... I'll ask it in this way, in issue of discussions about fertility & age of Pt this is raised in email dialogue with mother but never a direct conversation between child about consent before child sent back by email consent form.
SJ: Simple point is if issues identified may be relevant, they should be dealt with in person with patient?
+++

Dr S: Are you asking me if I agree with that?
SJ:Yes
Dr S: It's a challenging area because conversation about fertility with PBs is geared toward parents, role of PBs allow maturation to occur without impact of puberty so more mature conversations about puberty can occur later on
Dr S: Are you asking me if I agree with that?
SJ:Yes
Dr S: It's a challenging area because conversation about fertility with PBs is geared toward parents, role of PBs allow maturation to occur without impact of puberty so more mature conversations about puberty can occur later on
SJ: That role should never take supremacy over ensuring child is fully engage and understand process and agrees to it?
Dr S: I think Pt & parent are in these decisions, at certain ages it is parents providing more info & asking more questions than pt themselves
SJ: Asking questions doesn't take away important of decision making does it?
Dr S: Can you ask that again?
SJ: May be dialogue was almost exclusively with mother other than early consultation, but when decision is made the most important person is the child?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 28/09/2021 21:50

Interesting thread about Dr Paterski here: twitter.com/MForstater/status/1442952861525024769?s=19

SpindleWorld · 29/09/2021 08:40

That's pretty horrifying, that the child seems so 'out the loop' out of the discussions about loss of fertility, and that the parent takes the lead on it.

Are the parents ever assessed for competence? For good intentions?

RoyalCorgi · 29/09/2021 09:03

A number of notorious and even infamous doctors have had hundreds of testimonials from grateful and even adoring patients and colleagues. I sometimes wonder how they felt afterwards when the various crimes or breaches of ethics were undeniable.

Apparently Harold Shipman was absolutely adored by his patients.