Public NHS consultation on puberty blockers open

[WarriorN]

www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/puberty-suppressing-hormones/

NHS England commissions gender incongruence and dysphoria services and the purpose of this consultation is to seek views on a proposed interim clinical policy on puberty suppressing hormones (sometimes referred to as ‘puberty blockers’ or ‘hormone blockers’) for children and adolescents who have gender incongruence or dysphoria.

The policy proposition is that puberty suppressing hormones are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning option for the treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence or dysphoria.

This public consultation will run for 90 days from 3 August to 1 November 2023.

Can't see another thread on this, correct me if I'm wrong!

This public consultation will run for 90 days from 3 August to 1 November 2023.

I assume that means Cass will be delayed then This has to be instrumental to that final report.

General direction seems fine. But the impacts elsewhere likely not. We need Cass for schools guidance and so on. These delays are getting beyond a joke.

The policy proposition is that puberty suppressing hormones are not recommended to be available as a routine commissioning option for the treatment of children and adolescents who have gender incongruence or dysphoria

Good.

This feels incredibly significant.

I think it's going to be very hard to argue the case for their use in this, in the face of the against evidence.

I have wondered if AN knew this was coming...? Hence starting to write article about it?

I said on the other AN thread that I thought something was afoot….everyone seemed to be slowly backing away from gemder ideology. LOJ was a massive flag for me - not seen him comment in quite a while, and we know he loves to be heard. I wonder if they are starting to realise just how massive this medical scandal could be.

Thank you, done.

I realise now this is what Nancy was talking about earlier, 45k views and 66 likes....

https://twitter.com/nancymm_k/status/1687116666201903104?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Sadly, hopefully.

So bitter sweet, devastating for those that have been caught up in it. I was conversing with someone the other day in twitterland, they had made the decision to medically transition, propped up on that ‘only 1% of people regret’ study, based on 104 people. I tried to argue that androgyny was cool when I was young and you didn’t have to change their body, but I think the ideology had already taken hold. They are 18, I could weep for them.

I don't understand why the public are being consulted on clinical / medical decisions that should be based on rigorous data & medically ethically sound evidence?
Is it because the medical profession / NHS have been so appallingly captured by trans lobby groups that they are incapable of providing safe ethical medical care for children? So the public is needed to advise them on key issues about children, age inappropriate decision making and consent?

I suppose it will showcase the organisations and charities that nail their "nothing wrong with sterilising children & negatively impacting on their healthy bodies " colours to the mast.

I’m a bit confused about why there is a public consultation on this. Surely this is a medical issue - informed, qualified people need to view the relevant evidence and make unbiased judgements on that basis. Of course that has obviously failed to happen to a shocking extent so far with this issue but I’m still convinced that medical policy by public opinion is a good idea.

How are the public equipped to make these decisions? Fortunately there has been a lot of media on detransitioners so the average person is more likely to be aware of the negatives now than they would have previously but there are also a lot of ill-informed people and no doubt organised responses via people like Stonewall.

Still convinced = still not convinced…

Yes, although as I understand it there is such a paucity of research that perhaps they are looking for anecdata to make up for it?

Cynically because they know how many GE votes are at stake, or they know that this is a medical scandal about to blow big - something is going on, I’ve never felt such a big shift in just a few days before. If they put a consultation in, they can use it as mitigation.

But if that’s the case that’s an outrageous abuse of medical ethics and they must know it. If there’s a paucity of data then you first collect some before launching into a wide-spread intervention on some of society’s most vulnerable individuals …

If they are going to use this to say, well, there’s no data but people want us to do this so we’re going to, then … well, I think everything is a bit fucked.

From the consultation:

Has all the relevant evidence been taken into account?

It makes me weep that those preparing the policy aren't intimately aware with every scrap of evidence within their relatively narrow gaze, and that the public should be expected to dig things up for them.

Yes I also am wondering why there is a public consultation on this. Surely usually decisions around treatment options for complex medical issues are made by groups of experts in the field, guided by the clinical evidence base. I mean, they are in every other medical field aren't they? Treatments are developed, closely trialled in clinical trials, efficacy and side effect profile determined, cost-benefit analysis applied and then either recommended for use clinically, or not.

I imagine patient groups/focus groups might be used in the guideline development process, but I'd still think it far more important that the robust clinical evidence is what's guiding the decision. And if there isn't enough robust clinical evidence to support the treatment or its effectiveness or safety, then it shouldn't be offered.

We don't see public consultations about whether patients with a specific gene mutation cancer should be offered particular new chemotherapy drugs, for example. That decision is delegated to experts who can interpret the very complex research.

Why should children suffering gender related distress deserve any less rigorous a process than any other medical or mental health condition?

I don't understand public consultation either but I am aware this has happened for other medical things. It think it's part of the process.

Hopefully enough professionals and patients with the expertise and experience will give evidence that gives cause for concern about their use. Including detransitioners.

Ritchie's case is coming up and that's a biggie. As he was an adult.

I remember a similar consultation for something to do with hypothyroidism and possibly t3 a few years ago.

Came on to post this very link! @WarriorN I don't know why it's out to public consultation either...

I stand corrected, I didn't realise such a thing would happen.

Placemarking to come back to with due consideration.

The NHS is looking at Trepanning to let out evil spirits. We decided against it as there is no evidence of evil spirits or that this would work and it kills most patients. We are holding a public consultation to see what the public think about our decision….

Public consultation is about allowing everyone to have an opinion and feel included, as well as being genuinely about public/patient consultation. With all changes to policy/practice there may be unforeseen consequences for patients that need at least acknowledgment.

I can’t see how this is a bad thing really. Some really batshit ideas will get aired, scrutinised and put to bed. There will be some more sunlight. Some new jaws and pennies will drop. And there will be some more reverse ferreting.