Temporary ban on private clinics prescribing puberty blockers runs out on 3 September 2024

[IwantToRetire]

Temporary legislation to stop private clinics prescribing puberty blockers runs out on 3 September.

We’ve written to the Heath Secretary, Wes Streeting, to urge him to extend this ban.

This is a health emergency affecting mostly LGB young people.

LGB Alliance
.

I cant find what they have written, but thought I would post this reminder.

Partly because in a short while House of Commons goes into Summer Recess, and then doesn't return until September.

If anyone has more information, or can clarify please do add!

Not sure this is helpful but this is the announcement of the ban.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-restrictions-on-puberty-blockers

It will be interesting to see what happens, thank you for the memory jog.

The fox killer's challenge is listed for a hearing on Friday (IIRC). It may be that Wes Streeting is waiting for its result before doing anything further.

Thanks - can you provide a link as a memory jogger for details.

I just reacted on a more basic level the HoC wont have time to discuss.

But presumably, whether after friday or not, a Minister would be able to extend the ban for a further 3 / 6 months - maybe?

Did Labour formally accept the Cass Review.

Oh for a neatly indexed FWR thread resource!

I'd forgotten the GLP's intervention was imminent.

Here's hoping it joins the extensive list of failed actions on the Labour Pains Table of Failure and Futility (TOFF) (known to me as the spreadsheet of ignominy).

https://labourpainsblog.com/2024/05/03/good-law-project-three-score-and-ten/

The manifesto said they were going to follow Cass, so hopefully they will. Wes Streeting apparently said he supported the puberty blockers ban too.

This website was the first on Google to mention the hearing.

There's a thread about the challenge to the ban:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5091205-legal-challenge-to-uk-ban-of-puberty-blockers

Many thanks for links.

Need to do something about my memory, this is only about a month ago.

Or it could be my brain didn't want to remember some of the names and what is associated with them.

So their case is that "normal" Government procedure wasn't followed against the outoing Government erring on the side of caution to protect under 18s being prescribed drugs until the new evidence they have been given is properly assessed.

ie the Government very slightly changed the exisitng guidance:

Puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) are not available to children and young people for gender incongruence or gender dysphoria because there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.

From around the age of 16, young people with a diagnosis of gender incongruence or gender dysphoria who meet various clinical criteria may be given gender-affirming hormones alongside psychosocial and psychological support.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

• breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
• breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term gender-affirming hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as gender-affirming hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Children, young people and their families are strongly discouraged from getting puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones from unregulated sources or online providers that are not regulated by UK regulatory bodies.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

It's a narrow procedural case. The order made by Atkins is of a type intended only to be used if it emerges that a drug is so dangerous it must be banned immediately (think: thalidomide or contaminated blood).

I think they are likely to win on this ground. Also if Streeting tries to show that PB do meet the criterion he will probably fail, because the problem isn't that PBs have downsides, it's that the evidence base is just completely woeful, making a cost/benefit analysis impossible.

Yes, we may have our own ideas about this, but the NHS has paused PBs as a precaution only, and they can't force that on private providers.

The hearing could be interesting (and should be open to the public). The fox botherer has strongly implied that there is something damaging in the respondent's discovery documents, which we might find out about.

The order made by Atkins is of a type intended only to be used if it emerges that a drug is so dangerous it must be banned immediately

So you mean they could argue that even if it might be dangerous it should go on being used, until there is concrete proof of the dangers.

Even if that means other may be harmed whilst a full investigation goes ahead?

I don't know what the government can do to dissuade private providers from off-label supply of an approved drug, just because the evidence base for the off-label use is poor. In this situation, it's the prescribing doctor who is exposing themselves to liability if it goes wrong, and I guess they really believe in it 🙁

I hope I'm wrong and that Streeting can find a solution.

Is there any email address to request online access to the hearing? I saw tribunal tweets had applied to tweet but I don't know if it's an online hearing or if they are going in person.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list#administrative-court-daily-cause-list

It's down for 1030 in Court 19. I don't know that it would normally be streamed, so Tribunal Tweets might be planning to be in the room where it happens.

Does anyone know any better?

Loitering here in case there are Tribunal Tweets updates I can read during work breaks.

The fox botherer is frothing about Wes Streeting on Twix, which can only be a good thing.

Good to hear Streeting's position via the fox botherer!

Tribunal tweets starts here:
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1811687495161049589

Jolyon going off on one about Wes Streeting here:
https://x.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1811672311231090800

The claimants are also live-tweeting:

https://x.com/TransActualCIC/status/1811690354397028826

I'm a little surprised at the strength of Streeting's position.

I've already had to overcome default cynicism about something in work today, doing it x2 before lunch may well be the ruination of me.

Jolyon has gone off at the deep end, again and is advising people to leave the UK, and if they can't has provided advice on how to circumvent the ban.

It's been a slightly odd experience watching someone unravel in the way he has.

Maugham tweets today, 'My feelings about Wes Streeting are unprintable: these measures will kill trans children. These tweets are my own personal position and not that of [the GLP].
and then, to 'every trans family'
'I think it is time, if you have this choice, to leave the United Kingdom.'

JM's full tweet was:

"I congratulate the women in Labour's team who have, at least so far, brought thoughtfulness and sensitivity to the 'debate' about trans women. My feelings about Wes Streeting are unprintable: these measures will kill trans children."

He appears to think the debate is about trans women. Tell me this isn't a men's rights movement without...

Just had a quick peep at the Streeting hashtag on TwiX. It's troubling to see so much misunderstanding on display from people who genuinely believe the misrepresentation of Cass.

x.com/search?q=%22Wes%20Streeting%22&src=trend_click&f=live&vertical=trends

I cannot imagine being a child who has been the focus of a family move so that child can receive a treatment that has been found to not only not give that child space to think as it has been sold, but also causes significant negative impacts that might take a decade or more to evolve in the body. A treatment that has been reported by multiple country's health departments to not have more than a weak evidence base that the treatment even works as it has been sold to the patient. What child can come back from that?

That tweet is chilling.

The tweets in support of Jo Maugham's position are insane. How can people be so wilfully blind to the evidence?