Helen Webberley cleared.

[SunbowRainshine31]

Today, I celebrate the news that my appeal was successful and the proceedings are over. Even after intense scrutiny of my work and over a hundred allegations, my fitness to practise medicine has not been found to be impaired, I have no restrictions on my practice and I can resume my life-saving work. The case ends today and the proceedings are over.
The stringent analysis of this case will only serve to assist other doctors wanting to provide care for their trans patients. If I can develop the skills to help this group of patients then so can they. I am simply a well-meaning, well-educated GP who was willing to learn how best to provide this care and I was brave enough to stand against the outdated NHS model of care which is evidently not fit for purpose in its current state.

https://www.gendergp.com/helen-webberley-statement-gmc/?tw=1

Susie Green is saying that the fact that the judgement has come out today on trans day of visibility makes it even more special.

Hi Helen, why is it you are willing to criticise Warrior’s post, but you won’t answer reasonable questions?
is it actually that there are no reasonable answers to the very important questions that have been raised? Are you happy to continue using experimental treatments on children? I’d be very happy to hear your rebuttals of these issues - if you can produce coherent arguments against them?

Meanwhile, over on the TransgenderUK subreddit they have made a list of the NHS gender doctors who made complaints about Webberly to the GMC.

And they wonder why the NHS can’t recruit staff for gender services!

Our greatest asset is the TRAs' affinity for introducing bullet to foot.

In reality, though, someone who has just tangled with the GMC would risk further action if they could not show evidence of participating either in the NHS appraisal/CPD system or an equally robust one.

She won her appeal. That effectively means that all her charges were found not proved. They can't hold going through the fitness to practice process against someone where the charges have been found to be not proved.

Any doctor who has got into legal and regulatory difficulties would need to show evidence of reflection and learning from what has happened (as with any adverse incident). I would suggest that boasting all over social media about being exonerated and showing no insight whatsoever is an unwise thing to do in that context

She has been exonerated though. I've yet to read the decision (I can't find it on line) but if she has won her appeal (as reported) then she is off the hook.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I am not talking about the MPTS decision. HW has been exonerated. There is no restriction on her practice from that point of view.

But the GMC has powers to impose other requirements, for example to participate in CPD or retraining. These would not be a matter of public record. To be clear, I have no idea whether any such requirements have been imposed on HW. It may be that there are none. All I would say is that, by the time a doctor has got to the stage of an MPTS hearing, there have typically been many other interventions by their employer, if an NHS trust, or by the NHSE performance advisory group, if the doctor is a GP. Again, I am not alleging that this is the case for HW, I am only talking about what is typical.

I am not sure if you are a GP? Appraisal is somewhat different from GPs, compared to other doctors. There is a greater focus on probity, because of the independent nature of a GP's practice: they lack the oversight of a hospital clinical governance structure (for what that is worth!).

Its not childish at all

Its apparently an ‘ important’ discussion point that you don’t want to discuss

Are you actually helen?

and youve started a post to discuss yourself?

oh good lord 😀

But the GMC has powers to impose other requirements, for example to participate in CPD or retraining. These would not be a matter of public record.

Do you mean "undertakings". My understanding is that undertakings are an agreement made between a practitioner and the GMC that might take place if the GMC feel that there are issues that may be managed outside of the FtP process. So they help to protect the public but avoid a full on hearing because the registrant improves through learning and being insightful. Undertakings are published on the register so not a private arrangement.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/information-for-doctors-under-investigation/our-sanctions/undertakings

But the GMC clearly thought that undertakings would not be enough to protect the public in this case and it went to a full hearing. The result was that none of the charges were found proved.

All I would say is that, by the time a doctor has got to the stage of an MPTS hearing, there have typically been many other interventions by their employer, if an NHS trust, or by the NHSE performance advisory group, if the doctor is a GP.

Not necessarily. It depends what they're alleged to have done. Dishonesty or a serious criminal conviction would almost always result in FtoP proceedings. HW had dishonesty alleged and a serious criminal conviction so undertakings would not address these issues.

The result was that none of the charges were found proved.

Correction: obvs they were found proved but then successfully appealed.

@OldCrone

After a bit of digging I found it on the Judiciary website:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/webberley-v-general-medical-council/

I haven't read it yet, though

Mr Justice Jay appears to treat Gender Ideology as fact rather than belief

“… it is far from clear to me that what did take place should be strongly criticised.”

The judge went on: “The sole focus of this appeal has been the quality of the appellant’s clinical practice in relation to one patient, Patient C.

“This appeal does not raise any wider issues about the wisdom or otherwise of administering puberty blockers to the younger age group who wish to undergo interventions for gender reassignment with full parental agreement.”

He said Dr Webberley’s case “ends here” and would not be remitted to a tribunal panel for redetermination.

From the newspaper article mentioned earlier.

"However, in my view it is a reasonable inference from the document (as borne out by her oral evidence) that the Appellant gave Patient C and his mother at least an overview of the treatment pathway from puberty blockers to testosterone, and the reference to discussing at the age of 14 which puberty would be the best for Patient C only makes sense if he were told how a male fertility might be achieved" ???

Firstly, surely he means male puberty rather than male fertility?

Secondly a male puberty (or male fertility if that's what he did mean) will NEVER be achieved in a female! Unless this female patient is magically able to covert her ovaries to testes and start to produce sperm

Sorry - the above passage is taken from paragraph 16

Well that's a shame

I remember reading one of the Tribunal tweets reports and there was something one of the tribunals said that was obviously captured. Can’t remember what it was now but possibly taking puberty blockers being safe at face value. I remember it contradicted the Cass report and shocked me that they didn’t consider the scientific evidence.

Do you mean "undertakings". My understanding is that undertakings are an agreement made between a practitioner and the GMC that might take place if the GMC feel that there are issues that may be managed outside of the FtP process. So they help to protect the public but avoid a full on hearing because the registrant improves through learning and being insightful. Undertakings are published on the register so not a private arrangement

No, I mean arrangements managed through a PAG and appraisal process (if you are an English GP).

You are very insistent that I am wrong about this, so can I turn the question round? What is the pathway by which you think a GP with a criminal conviction relating to failures around regulation could satisfy regulatory requirements (GMC/CQC/NHSEs or devolved equivalent) without showing significant evidence of insight and learning from the incident?

We don't know what HW's situation may be with regards to the GMC or PAG, so let's use a fictional example of a GP with the same criminal conviction (failure to register her service with the regulator) but a different clinical concern - say, supplying controlled drugs to addicts without proper monitoring and safeguards (for the avoidance of doubt, there is no suggestion whatsoever that HW has done this - I am specifically using this example because it is fictional).

So this GP - Dr Smith - has a criminal conviction. She is exonerated by an MPTS hearing, so no FtP restrictions, but the GMC and her local PAG have received many concerns about her work. She does not show evidence of insight but instead states very publicly that she believes she has done nothing wrong. Are you saying that you think there will be no barrier to her returning to clinical practice?

They can only really rely on the evidence in front of them and from memory the GMC’s expert was shite and Webberley’s expert was “PB’s safe and fully reversible” and the committee accepted this evidence. The GMC really cocked it up I think.

Thanks for the link.

I know the judge is probably not a biologist or a medical doctor, but does he really think that people can change sex?

He certainly seems to believe that gender identity is real and that children can be transsexual.

7. First, children who are assigned female at birth and who identify as male typically undergo any requested medical intervention in two stages. The first stage involves the administration of a GnRHa (gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist) or puberty blocker. This relieves the child from the acute distress of puberty and has the practical consequence of giving him time to reflect on his choices. The second stage involves the administration of testosterone which, in the circumstances I am addressing, operates as a gender-affirming or cross-sex hormone to induce the secondary sex characteristics that match their gender identity

I presume he was trained in this nonsense by Stonewall or GIRES.

Perhaps all is not totally lost for him, though?

POSTSCRIPT
178. The sole focus of this appeal has been the quality of the Appellant’s clinical practice in relation to one patient, Patient C. This appeal does not raise any wider issues about the wisdom or otherwise of administering puberty blockers to the younger age group who wish to undergo interventions for gender reassignment with full parental agreement.

For a bit of light relief, Nina Paley's playing card of Susie Green made me laugh.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4775093-playing-cards

https://www.heterodorx.com/gender-wars-cards/

Surely not, no one is that childish!

Oh wait, she's a trans activist.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣