BMA to vote to 'disavow' the Cass review

[mzdemeanour]

The governing body of the BMA is to hold a vote tomorrow (Wednesday July 17) to 'disavow' the Cass Review. Words fail me to be honest. Any doctors, particularly members of the BMA, able to explain or comment?

Article by Hannah Barnes in the Spectator www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2024/07/why-are-british-doctors-voting-to-reject-the-cass-report and thread on X/Twitter x.com/hannahsbee/status/1813252387504857241

I expect it was all the ‘abuse’ pointing out that they had completely lost the run of themselves

Hey guys, your internal policies potentially affect citizens of the UK. You are only in the jobs you are in because every person in the UK pays for the NHS. Your duty isn't to pacify your LGBTQIA++ clubs. Get with the fucking programme.

<BEEP BEEP BEEP>

🚨 WARNING! This ferret is reversing. Please do not undertake on the inside as it may not see you in its mirrors. STAND CLEAR, THIS FERRET IS REVERSING 🚨

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall at the BMA today!

It is concerning that the BMA is not being open about this. Suspect very robust discussions are happening behind the scenes though. It would be a disaster for the credibility of the organisation if the motion were to get anywhere.

Was it in fact this article that started it all?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lgbtq-doctors-group-gladd-challenges-101631380.html

MN quote of the year 😂

It's a lovely quote but doctors don't study Foucault.

I think I first heard about him in an article in the Guardian about him abusing boys in Tunisia. Had previously been blissfully unaware of his existence.

The BBC is now reporting on this story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2l7ze7m0o.amp

A real flat report there. Few omissions but no real one sidedness

Isn’t the problem that they haven’t covered this story in any other way? Just that the BMA might have qualms?
I might have missed something though.

Have they edited the report?

The link used by @LookingForwardToSunshine has the first sentence including 'top doctor' but that phrase is nowhere in the article now.

Dr Runswick may be a senior council member but she is a very junior doctor.

I'm sure it's not on their bedside tables! I was thinking about the broader movement to enforce consensus on the matter across a variety of platforms - popular media, academic literature, legislation and policy, social media and much more. There are people in that movement who know what they're doing. Not necessarily Foucauldian scholars, but people with some competence as marketing strategists, nudgers and political communicators.

That struck me too. I wondered who the ‘top doctor’ was given Runswick only graduated in 2020 and I am guessing her role at BMA is at the expense of at least some time working as a junior doctor.

It strkes me that, quite often, people who are highly politically motivated, use their profesional role and the access that role gives them, to agitate, lobby and shape policy. This is certainly true of political actors in teaching ( I used to be a teacher). The main drive and focus is on politicking, not the actual function of their profession. They become profesional agitators. It is these people who shape the environment and culture for those others who are not quite so focused on political ideoloogy.

Runswick ( like OJ) is the child of political activists.

Agreed - and working with people like that is a nightmare. They go on and on and on about their hobbyhorse. Every meeting they bring it up, they’ll put things in team chats, email organisations leaders etc etc. everyone else just wants to be left alone to do their job so they end up placating them just to get ms radical (or dr radical) to shut up & leave them in peace

and that’s how organisations get captured

What's the average time it takes to diagnose a women with endometriosis? Years - seven and a half years according to the RCOG.

I would imagine if a man actually had endo, then their diagnostic pathway would be a tenth of the time it would take a woman, partly due to medical misogyny but also because there would be a paper or two in it.

IANAD but I can diagnose the bullshit from here.

In the UK men don't have to transition to get treatment for endometriosis. Its extremely rare in men. It could be caused by chimerism or a retained twin.

''In the case of endometriosis, metaplasia would explain how the endometriosis cells appear spontaneously inside the body – and how they appear in areas such as the lung and skin. It would also explain the appearance of endometriosis cells in women with no womb – or in men who have taken hormone treatments.''
www.endometriosis-uk.org/causes

Reported in Daily Mail:
The BMA last night said its council did not vote on the motion as reported by the New Statesman but refused to reveal the wording of any replacement, prompting speculation it had merely been tweaked.Leading members of the BMA have controversially backed the use of puberty blockers on Twitter.Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human-rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'A motion that calls the Cass Review into question is clearly ideologically driven, not based on science or evidence.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13645583/British-Medical-Association-accused-falling-prey-activist-agenda-failing-publicly-landmark-Cass-review-NHS-gender-identity-services-children.html?ito=native_share_article-top

Or they get promoted to a different role, with the encouragement of the long-suffering department who are just relieved to see the back of them and to be able to get on with their jobs..

Wes Streeting is getting around the table with the BMA on Tuesday to thrash out doctors' pay. I imagine the BMA could do without the accompanying ridicule passing the nonsense motion would have heaped on them. Hannah Barnes is asking for anyone on the BMA Council to brief her on what happened. Hopefully someone does. I'm sure it was a sensible whistleblower who brought her this story.

Wes Streeting is getting around the table with the BMA on Tuesday to thrash out doctors' pay. I imagine the BMA could do without the accompanying ridicule passing the nonsense motion would have heaped on them.

I very much doubt that they are concerned. And even if someone raised it they would just say the usual right wing media is creating an issue that doesn't exist.

As far as I know no one has actually posted the wording of the original motion, so even if we got information about what was passed we wouldn't know how big a change it was.

From the DM article:

The BMA last night said its council did not vote on the motion as reported by the New Statesman but refused to reveal the wording of any replacement,

Part of me wonders if the motion ever existed by some gender critical members or staff got wind of an attempt to put forward something so unprofessional and unproven that they leaked it to make sure it wasn't put forward and embarrass the BMA.

Hannah Barnes, the journalist who originally drew attention to this story with an article in the Spectator, has shared the wording of the motion as it was sent to members (one if whom then passed it to her) on X. Link here.

For those without access to X, she posted the following:
"The BMA have said: "The motions discussed were not as reported". I was not in today's Council meeting . It may well have been that the motion was amended during discussions. But the motion sent to members was as reported. BMA did not deny this when approached by me yesterday."

Thanks.

But did it ever get on the agenda?

All I'm saying it is just possible that there are enough GC people in various places who are able to pre-empt an attempt like this via leaks etc..

This is good because in the past where organisations have been captured, nobody would dare do this.
.

The original HB article says it wasn't presented at the ARM meeting, but it seems this is the only place BMA policy is made.

The RB (Representative body), which consists of delegates from all BMA divisions and branches of practice, regional and national councils, meets each year at ARM to form BMA's policy.
When a motion is passed at ARM, it is handed to the appropriate body for implementation and it ultimately becomes BMA policy.

So why was a policy item put forward at a meeting that couldn't make policy?

Just to repeat, i am really glad this has become public, but have found it confusing.

What would be good is if it makes the BMA think again about over promoting someone, and that Runswick is asked to stand down from the Board.

I am sure they could find a younger member of the BMA who is actually committed to making medical provision better both for providers and patients, and doesn't have a personal agenda they think should be everybody's priority.