Refusal of adult gender clinics to take part in study ‘shocking’ - David Bell

[IwantToRetire]

Dr Hilary Cass had, through her Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, commissioned research tracking the journeys of young people who were seen by the now-shut Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

The research could have encompassed outcomes for approximately 9,000 young people who moved from Gids into NHS adult gender dysphoria clinics.

Dr Cass described it as a “world leading opportunity” to add to the evidence base – something her report makes clear is sorely lacking in the area of gender care.

But six of the seven adult clinics declined to support the study, with reasons for not doing so including ethical considerations and concerns about funder motivation and political interference, with fears the resulting “high-profile national report” could be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

In a letter to John Stewart, national director for specialised commissioning in NHS England and NHS Improvement, dated last month, Dr Cass said that despite his “welcomed efforts to obtain cooperation, most of the NHS gender clinics have refused to take part in this research”.

Dr Cass said it had “not been at all straightforward trying to get this research off the ground” and had “absorbed a considerable amount of time and attention” from the review and delayed its work.

Part of a longer article https://uk.news.yahoo.com/whistleblower-refusal-adult-gender-clinics-230100752.html

They really don't want people to know what they're doing do they

Haven't read anything. But if they are NHS, surely they can be told to take part. It's a public body.

didn't you get the memo? Trans anything gets a free pass and can do what the fuck they like. Right up until they cannot. Starting tomorrow. This will be (or should be) the end of gender bollocks in the NHS and wider society.

The Telegraph front page certainly says that adult services are now under scrutiny…

Copy and paste from the image text (so might be a bit ropey!)

“Evidence for letting children change gender built on shaky foundations, says Cass report
By Michael Searles, Laura Donnelly and Daniel Martin
THE NHS will review all trans treat-ment, as a landmark report says that the evidence for allowing children and young people to change gender is built on "shaky foundations"
Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, today publishes her review into the support and treatment offered to children who believe they are transgender, and warns that extreme care should be taken before anyone under the age of 25 transitions.
It also calls for an end to the prescribing of any powerful hormone drugs to under-18s; warns that children who change gender may regret it; finds that many have experienced trauma, neglect and abuse; and says there is no good evidence" on the long-term outcomes of treatments given to children.
The review warns of pressures on families, with parents feeling forced to allow their children to transition so they are not labelled transphobic.
Dr Cass declares that "gender medicine for children and young people is built on shaky foundations".
In response, the NHS is to review all transgender treatment it provides, including for adults, and treatment for any new patients aged 16 and 17 at adult clinics will immediately be paused Rishi Sunak has welcomed the rec-ommendations, highlighting the sharp rise in recent years in chiktren, particularly girls, questioning their gender.
Backing Dr Cass's call for all cases to be treated with great care and compas-sion he said: "We simply do not know the long-term impacts of medical treatment or social transitioning on them (children), and we should therefore exercise extreme caution."
The 388-page report took four years to produce, amid mounting concern that children are being allowed to change gender in schools and by doctors without question.
Dr Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, cautions against hasty decisions while children's brains are developing. calling for unhurried, holistic, therapeutic support " for those aged between 17 and 25 She adds that "life-changing" decisions must be properly considered in aulthood, noting that brain maturation continues into the mid-20s.
Dr Cass says that the regional centres recommended in her interim report, to provide mental health and other support to children who want to change gender, should care for people aged upto 25
Dr Cass says the "toxicity of the debate is exceptional" and that she had been "criticised" by all sides. There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop," she urges In a letter to Dr Cass seen by The Tel-egraph, the NHS has said it will under take an external review of all its adult gender clinics and has instructed them
*to implement a pause on offering first appointments to young people below their 18th birthday".
The letter, written by John Stewart, NHS England's national director of spe-cialised commissioning, said it would also review the use of gender affirming hormones. similar to the rigorous process that was followed to review the use of puberty suppressing hormones.
Children's clinics have been overwhelmed by referrals in the past decade, now receiving more than 1,600 referrals a year, compared with 50 in 2009.
An NIS spokesman said: *The NIIS has made significant progress towards establishing a fundamentally different gender service for children and young people - in line with earlier advice by Dr Cass... by stopping the routine use of puberty-suppressing hormones and opening the first of up to eight new regional centres... We will set out a full implementation plan following careful consideration of this report."
Full report: Page 6
Allison Pearson: Features, page 7”

Have started another thread (!) with the link to the Final Report which is now available on line. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5046923-final-report-cass-review-now-published

But thought it worth highlighting through this thread the shocking lack or cooperation (totaly unprofessionalism) of the adult clinic.

Is it that staf are still scared of speaking out publicly or what?

And worse still implies these adult clinics aren't having sucess because if they were surely they would their outcomes to be in the Final Report to show that children who "progressed" through the systme did flourish?

There is only one reason you don't want your work to be in the spotlight.

Running for cloud cover as the disinfectant of sunshine is on the horizon.

I suspect it’s also because a review of adult patients will find high rates of medical complications as well as ongoing mental health co-morbidities that have not improved with “affirming care”.

If 6 out of 7 clinics for something else, eg a liver condition, refused to cooperate with a major, wide-ranging review, surely questions would be asked. The optics of this are terrible.

If there is no evidence base that the treatments are beneficial and improve outcomes and a clear risk of harm, and the clinics involved refuse to take part in research to develop the evidence base, then there is only one ethical way forward. These 'treatments' should not be allowed to be commissioned. Gender medicine or not, it is not ethical to expend NHS resources on 'treatments' for non life threatening conditions that are totally unproven and potentially harmful. This would not be accepted in any other branch of medicine.

I don’t understand how they can refuse to take part in a government commissioned report?

I would be extremely interested to know which adult clinic agreed to take part. Is that published/leaked? (Disclainer, haven't read full report yet!)

The field of psychology has a ropey past whereby research has been misused with devastating impacts. Intelligence research has been used to sterilise women and to deny access to healthcare. As a result of this initial training and ongoing regulatory bodies ensure that psychologists are hyper aware of the potential for misuse of data and research.

My take on the refusal to share data is probably linked to them truly believing this is the right thing to do. They are 💯 wedded what they believe is the right approach. I don't think anything will change that. This is why the change in approach needs a change in staff

But six of the seven adult clinics declined to support the study, with reasons for not doing so including ethical considerations and concerns about funder motivation and political interference, with fears the resulting “high-profile national report” could be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

Continued funding for clinically unproven treatment which had a lack of evidence base was more important than ethics. Hiding behind the phrase 'political interference' whilst refusing to cooperate and provide medical evidence is the very definition of unethical. All in all that defence is pretty weasely don't you think?

Adult gender treatments MUST now be scrutinised. Yes it will open up all sorts of unsavoury issues into the public eye but society and the medical arena must be cognisant of and willing to examine AGP, transmaxxing, and all the other incentives to transition besides crippling gender/body dysphoria.

Surely if they were concerned about the reports being subject to 'political interference' or misinterpretation, they would want all their data that showed that medically transitioning helped patients with their mental health problems and really was beneficial to them. I suspect they have nothing of the sort. I know several trans/ non binary people. All of them still have mental health conditions/neurodiversity. Transitioning has done nothing but mask medical conditions that should have been properly treated.

Surely if they were concerned about the reports being subject to 'political interference' or misinterpretation, they would want all their data that showed that medically transitioning helped patients with their mental health problems and really was beneficial to them.

You'd think so, if they actually believed themselves, but I'm of the opinion that they knew that it would not stand up to scrutiny.

Exactly.

They are politicking.

They know.

They don't want the general public to find out.

These ideologues will be screaming "lobotomy is valid" until their licence to mutilate vulnerable people is taken away.

But six of the seven adult clinics declined to support the study, with reasons for not doing so including ethical considerations and concerns about funder motivation and political interference, with fears the resulting “high-profile national report” could be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

The clinic personnel will have been lionised for non-cooperation. It would be very expensive to take legal action. QMUL spent millions contesting the request for data release in re: the controversial PACE trial.

https://me-pedia.org/wiki/PACE_trial

Recall that Helen Webberley won her appeal and was described her model of care to be “at the vanguard of this evolving approach to transgender care” and “right and fit for purpose”.

https://www.gendergp.com/dr-webberley-wins-high-court-appeal/

Absolutely shocking.

The NHS is an arse covering organisation. Par excellence though, so not surprising ( not just my experience, though that is definitely my experience, but there have been reports on this too).

The NHS have said they will review adult services

They may have believed it was the right thing to do, but they must have also known it could not be shown to be the right thing to do when subject to rigorous scrutiny, otherwise they would have complied.

They were prepared to carry on with unethically with unevidenced ‘medicine’ as that fitted their ideological position.

Sorry, I think these clinicians were as captured as any other TRA.

This reason for their non-compliance speaks volumes as to their level of capture, concerns about funder motivation.

They are displaying classic TRA/ gender ideologue thought patterns and behaviour. No debate and preserve the ideology by refusing to submit it to scrutiny.

Utterly unprofessional.

You only have to look at the Post Office inquiry to know that evidence from a very long time ago can still end up in the public domain.

Being cynical I wonder how many people who withheld the data are knowingly kicking the can down the road hoping they get to retire on gold plated NHS pensions before it all comes out.

Another big lesson to learn from the Post Office scandal is that the scandal can be lying there in plain sight for many years, there can even be people shaking their heads over how bad it is, and still nothing happens. Until there's a catalysing moment and suddenly everyone is up in arms.