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.

Indeed. One of the main issues raised by Cass, the CQC's inadequate service finding and highlighted in "Time to Think" was "diagnostic overshadowing". Very mentally fragile / unwell children's co morbidities ignored in favour of uncritical "gender incongruence affirmation" resulting in these children not only ending up on a single route to infertility & life long surgery and drug use (via endocrinologists like Butler) but with all their other mental health challenges being ignored. Thus creating a cohort of adults with untreated mental health conditions.

The idea that a senior medic in the NHS is now briefing against children being holistically treated with evidenced health care is shocking.

I mean senior management who are responsible for the shit show that GIDS has become. If they shut GIDS and just transfer all the same people into the new service nothing will change will it?

In particular those who not only ignored the concerns of whistle blowers over a period of years but attempted to prevent staff in the service from seeking advice from Sonia Appleby should not be working in the new clinics. The current service clearly has a problem whereby staff are leaving in droves having attempted to raise concerns. To prevent transferring all the same problems to the new service the new clinics will need strong leadership and a willingness to reflect on what went wrong at GIDS. Without reflection the same problems will be likely to arise again.

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.

I agree with this. A healthy respect for evidence based practice is vital.

Hi Arabella, I’ve been at work all day, so only just coming back to these threads. Like you, I’ve found it interesting that others interpreted it / reacted so differently to the way I saw it. But there’s is been a third thread, just started this evening, where the OP’s reaction was similar to mine and viewed it as mud slinging. So interesting to see the different views and reactions.

Well, it is mud slinging, for sure! Or do you mean the article itself? I thought it was pointing out the mud slinging of Dr Butler ...

Both really, I thought the wording of the headline of the article (describing him as a top doctor) and the first couple of paras “clinical lead” and “major conference” and “awarded a key role” painted him as the expert, thereby lending weight to his criticism of Cass, at least for anyone unfamiliar with the issues. So although it’s a detailed article, anyone doing a quick skim read or just glancing at the headline. My (possibly knee jerk) reaction was to see it as part of the BBC’s pushing of a particular point of view, which was why I was surprised to see HB’s name on the article.

Ah, okay, yes, I can see that point of view.

I read it as underlining how the rot goes to the top ...

It's so refreshing reading Cass's blog. There are adults in the room, with the resources to actually get stuff done. Proper doctors and scientists, looking for the evidence and not presupposing conclusions. YESSS! Anyone who objects to caution, careful study and follow up is putting their agenda up for all to see.

It's interesting how we can interpret the same article differently. As we know, the journalists don't write the headlines and the headline ('top doctor') was a bit 'tabloidy' but I thought the actual article was damning.

If I were someone in overall charge of implementing the Cass Review, I would be very worried. The phrase 'questioning the integrity' is tantamount to calling someone dishonest. Similarly, there is no positive spin to nepotism, especially when we expect decisions about where to base services to be based on clinical need, quality and objectivity. I would also not expect a senior NHS employee employed to implement a new policy to question that policy at an international conference. Of course, maybe Professor Butler has been quoted out of context but report refers to a recording , which suggests Barnes & Clare are confident of being able to defend what they've written.

It's worth remembering what that EPATH conference was like: https://archive.ph/QyKOq

This bloke was responsible for the lamentable state of affairs at the Tavistock and should not be allowed within a million miles of children.

This is desperate stuff. Nepotism? Mate, you're sterilising kids.

To be fair to Butler, he did raise concerns with the GMC about GenderGP, resulting in Helen Webberley's medical misconduct hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

In Time to Think, Hannah Barnes writes:
The case was brought after concerns were raised with the General Medical Council (GMC) by, among others, UCLH endocrinologist Gary Butler. He was relaying the worries of several GIDS clinicians about the care Webberley and her company GenderGP were providing to young trans-identifying patients who were also being seen at the service or on the GIDS waiting list.

Oops, forgot to add the page number. It's page 377 in the Kindle edition.

This is how it was reported on Newsnight - slightly deminished by so much pre-reprting as what is was going to say (and relagated to second place by Newsnight who chose the death of Tina Turner to be the lead item) starts at about 25 mins in https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001m809/newsnight-singing-legend-tina-turner-dies-aged-83

Absolutely! This part stood out for me:

”There are several other systematic reviews looking at social transition, psychological therapies, outcomes of medical intervention and changing epidemiology. The systematic reviews will be written up and peer reviewed and the findings will inform the Review’s final report.

”The systematic reviews will not give all the answers, and some informed decisions will have to be made about how to use the emerging findings. To help with this, I have brought together a group of professionals from a wide range of clinical backgrounds, representing various professional bodies and areas of expertise, as well as representatives from each of the Phase One provider organisations.”

She has reviewers looking at psychological therapies! That will be like a red rag to a bull for gender medicine extremists, who insist it’s not a mental health disorder.

Changing epidemiology is about the huge rise in young women presenting and should highlight the fact that the Dutch Protocol is largely untested in that group.

And the last sentence is very clear. She is absolutely going to bring in those “shocking” people who haven’t been involved with “gender affirmative” care, because she wants a much wider perspective.

It all sounds very thorough and absolutely appropriate, given the increasing noise in various countries about the lack of evidence upholding the current model.

If anyone wants to listen to Gary Butler’s full talk at EPATH it’s here:

https://make.headliner.app/download/57f1363d-40ea-4229-bdb1-5b160e2884ad

Personally I think his moans about the BBC using quotes selectively are foolish- I think put in context, he comes off even worse.

She has reviewers looking at psychological therapies! That will be like a red rag to a bull for gender medicine extremists, who insist it’s not a mental health disorder.

I wonder how this is going to mesh with the 'conversion therapy' narrative?

😶