Tavistock top doctor accuses Dr Cass of 'nepotism'

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65687697

Dr Butler spoke at EPATH conference and questioned Dr Cass' actions and integrity.

'In the recording, which was then handed to Newsnight, he was also heard questioning the personal integrity of Dr Cass. He implied there had been, what he referred to as, nepotism around the choice of two hospitals in the south of England as the sites for new clinics - suggesting Dr Cass's previous involvement in them both had been a factor.'

Decent article from a Newsnight investigation, also includes comment from a detransitioner.

I’m not sure why Prof Gary Butler hasn’t been totally discredited after having read Hannah Barnes’ book. Some people have absolutely no shame

I heard this on the radio this morning and was quite surprised at the accusation of “nepotism”. I’ve lent my Hannah Barnes book to someone so can’t check, but didn’t Butler come out of it pretty badly?

There's another thread about this too:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4812750-highly-selective-newsnight-report-re-gids-dr-speech-at-epath-conference

I hope there's a lot more scrutiny of this. It was included in the 8-8.10 news slot on the Today programme. I realise that Professor Butler has said his remarks have been taken out of context but I am surprised that someone asked to develop a new service seems so wedded to the old one.

Oh, bugger, missed the other thread.

Interesting, that OP has a very different take on it than I got. I saw this as an investigation into Dr Butler's personal attacks on Dr Cass.

As I posted on the other thread - this demonstrates what many have warned about. That the involvement in the new systems of key personnel who have been responsible for the current unethical, unevidenced treatment of children will result in the same outcomes. Cass insists that children's holistic needs are addressed while Butler has presided over administering life shattering medication to children on the basis of a gender affirming approach.

His comments indicate that he'll continue down the same path and needs to discredit Cass's demands for safe, evidence based medicine that takes account of the child's holistic needs

MrsO

I fear the same.

"But referring to the hospitals, which will form these new hubs, Prof Butler appeared to question the need for a more diverse workforce, telling the conference that none of the staff had "any experience of management of gender incongruence in young people". He added: "It's shocking.""

It is almost like this doctor doesn't want the best outcome. But to continue with indoctrinated medicos providing the same low standard of care.

I'm glad to see Newsnight documenting this. I wonder if Hillary Cass is aware of the EPATH conference, or even attended?

It's hard to believe they are taking anyone from GIDS management to the new service. Will Polly Carmichael also be involved? It's starting to look a bit farcical at this point.

It's possible the old guard will not be able to accept Cass' findings and/or recommendations.

If that's the case, and they are unable or unwilling to use evidence based care to treat children, then perhaps they shouldn't be involved in the NHS at all.

Apart from anything else, that's not what 'nepotism' means.

I've just seen that there is a new blog post on the Cass Review page (dated May 9)

https://cass.independent-review.uk/entry-9-learning-together/

Worth noting:
All children should receive "the same high standards of evidence-based care".

"it is vital that the emerging clinical and managerial leadership team within the new providers has oversight of the programme to ensure that both the training and the trainers adhere to the frameworks, values and approaches that they are developing".

systematic reviews looking at social transition, psychological therapies, outcomes of medical intervention and changing epidemiology".

"there are still critically important unanswered questions about the outcome of hormone treatments"

'There has been some public debate about the importance of training for staff in these new providers and I am taking an interest in how this develops, given the influence that this will have on the operation and culture within the service and ultimately the experience of the children and young people accessing the service. From my perspective, as Chair of the Review, it is vital that the emerging clinical and managerial leadership team within the new providers has oversight of the programme to ensure that both the training and the trainers adhere to the frameworks, values and approaches that they are developing. I am sure that in the near future there will be a training needs assessment of staff who will be working in the new services. Many of these clinicians will bring transferable skills and expertise and the needs assessment should inform development of the training programme to ensure that it is tailored to the evolving workforce. The training programme should be flexible and iterative, with the option to draw in experience from a wide range of experts in relevant related areas, in order to ensure that a holistic approach is maintained, and that the newest research is translated into clinical practice.'

From the latest diary entry of Dr Cass.

Ach, cross posted, Mrs Overton!

I think that word 'holistic' isn't going to go down well, is it?

Seems Dr Butler and others want to both avoid scrutiny and avoid losing the grip they currently have on the service.

SO the response to the very inconvenient findings of the inquiry is to try to smear and discredit the person leading it.

Which does absolutely nothing to change the established facts, just throws a lot of mud at the whole thing in the hope of smearing the PR to the general public and so continuing to get away with stuff.

Yeah I'm sure I know this grubby tactic. Well.

"experience of management of gender incongruence in young people"

What is 'gender incongruence'? People like him should be made to define their terms unambiguously. And then we'd see that 'gender incongruence' just means not adhering to regressive stereotypes and/or being same-sex attracted. Then he can explain why any of these children need to be medicated.

Yes, nils. It was inevitable that if Cass poses a threat to the grift, she'd get personal attacks.

It's kind of the new and modern version of an old classic isn't it?

It used to go, in times when there were actual morals, values, right and wrong, stuff like that, "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"

Now it kind of goes

"I can't argue with what you say but will do my best to destroy you personally in the hope that no one much will hear you and get in the way of me doing what I want".

Please wash your hands carefully when leaving 2023. We live in grimy times.

These people are embedded like weeds or dry rot. It's bad enough we have a generation of useless politicians, we also have a cadre of doctors who are as far from their oath to "first, do no harm" as they can possibly be.

Apart from anything else, that's not what 'nepotism' means.

That's what I thought! Who are they implying Dr Cass is trying to give favours to? Her old team?

Friends with doctors in the family say they can have a bit of a God complex…whether that is correct or not, it is always hard to admit you may have been wrong and it must be harder still when so many young lives have been changed by your medical approach. If the direction needs changing (and it seems clear it does) that would be a good reason to change at least those doctors in this area with managerial power. I imagine the issue is that almost all of the relevant UK specialists have had their hands washed in the blood of Gids’ former approach. There are unlikely to be a large number of unemployed gender doctors sitting around waiting to take up the baton.

I think we need to be a bit careful with this.

What do we mean by management for example? Just the very "top" people or anyone with a managerial/senior clinical remit.

One thing Cass reported in her finding was the inconsistency of approach within GIDS where some parts of the service were driven by an affirmative model and others and exploratory one - depending on the allegiance of the senior clinicians at the time/location.

From memory there was also a difference in approach between Leeds and London.

Reading the Barnes book it's clear that many clinicians in GIDS had deep concerns about affirmative care and pushed back on it.

Are we suggesting that these people should be excluded from the new Cass service model?

Whilst I think it's fair to say Carmichael and Butler shouldn't be anywhere near it, there are current and former practitioners that have both experience and a heathy respect for evidence based practice that should not preclude them from working in this field again.

For example one therapist Spilladis wrote a paper highlighting the benefits of exploratory therapy whilst at GIDS that was referenced in Cass. He was also interviewed by Barnes for her book and talked about the stress/toll working at GIDS had placed on him (he's since left the Tavi).

I think there's a danger in potentially throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Not team per se, but the hospitals she had previously worked at/with forming part of the initial 2 regional rollouts in London and the North East.

I don't agree that is "nepotism" and if it does qualify it's extremely tenuous as a description. If he thinks there are any irregularities with whatever procurement system there is he is free to report them.