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

Ahh, yes, I see what you are saying. I expect that the fact this was put into the public domain did cause the BMA to pull it from being discussed. Like you, I imagine that was the point of leaking it.
Thank goodness for the adults there who still seem to value evidence based medicine enough to call this kind of ideological activism out.

I think a whistleblower went to Hannah Barnes to expose the vote on the intended motion. The fact the BMA said that the wording wasn't the one debated suggests it was amended or watered down in an attempt to get it to pass. In the event they have kicked it all into the long grass. I'm treating this as a win as they backed off when exposed to ridicule. These activists are not getting it all their way.

Whilst it’s (probably) good that the reported motion was amended/not voted on, that BBC piece means that some people will think the Cass report is more controversial in medical circles than it is. Although the BMA are mainly in the news because of strikes not everyone realises that they are a union rather than a collection of senior medical experts.

Exactly.
If one steps back nd looks at the medias influence, they have got us into trouble time and again.
Trump wouldnt have got in without the Tsunami of free press he got in 2016
and so little digging.

Brexit would never have happened if Farage wasnt given a semi permanent platform on the Beeb.

And Tra wouldnt have happened if there had been any serious reporting into it.

I was listening to an episode of This Jungian Life podcast about malignant narcissism earlier (like you do) They mentioned a meme attributed to a Kurt Vonnegut essay. This is the relevant section of the transcript:

…”And we can easily be agitated. You know, I saw something, I saw a meme on social media.

I have no idea. I haven't verified it. I should have verified it before I started recording this morning.

But apparently Kurt Vonnegut said, and I don't know if this is true, but it's still a great metaphor. If you put brown ants and red ants in a jar, they won't kill each other. But if you shake the jar, they will begin to kill each other.

And the red ants will think of the black ants as their enemy and vice versa. So the question is, who's shaking the jar?

That's a powerful metaphor.”

Source:
From This Jungian Life Podcast: MALIGNANT NARCISSISTS: they're closer than you think, 13 Jun 2024
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/this-jungian-life-podcast/id1376929139?i=1000658855160

Who is shaking the jar on gender?

Given it has taken months for the mainstream media to reliably acknowledge that there might be any professional disagreement with elements of how the Cass review was conducted, it looks like a promising start toward a more neutral and open narrative. The cracks are showing.

This should be a time to rejoice in GC circles - the Cass review doesn't go nearly far enough to satisfy the stated agenda of the Big Names and will in time become quite a shackle unless it is discredited.

ButterflyHatched. Can you specify which parts you feel are flawed and why?

The cracks are showing.

They certainly are, just not the ones you think.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-to-undertake-an-evaluation-of-the-cass-review-on-gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people

They have put out a statement.

Thank you.

How interesting that they refer to Yale university's response and not the responses from other country's health departments who have done similar reviews and supported the Cass finding, before the Cass report was finalised. Seems to be very highly selective considering the recent reviews from those other countries. One could say that the BMA has already declared their bias.

'The BMA is calling for a pause'

This is exactly why I left the BMA. it isn't a Royal College, it's just a union but seems to think it should be making clinical policy.

Oh dear - sounds like they already know what they want to find!

The BMA has been critical of proposals to ban the prescribing of puberty blockers to children and young people with gender dysphoria, calling instead for more research to help form a solid evidence base for children’s care – not just in gender dysphoria but more widely in paediatric treatments. The Association believes clinicians, patients and families should make decisions about treatment on the best available evidence, not politicians

Two faced hypocrasy. The politician "decision" was based on the report.

In other words the BMA is saying Cass didn't listen to us, everyone else she listened to is rubbish.

So obviously the report is wrong.

They didn't even attempt to justify why puberty blocker should continue to be prescribed. ie if they had indicated some withdrawal system or something, anything.

They are just saying because we dont agree with the Cass Report recommendations it shouldn't be listened to.

Concerning to know this is the group who could influence any treatment I might have for totally other conditions. If they can behave like this about purberty blockers, who knows what else they think they are entitled to decided.

Unfortunately I suspect the Labour Party will leap on this.

Interesting that the BMJ (subsidiary wholly owned by BMA) came out in favour of Cass immediately.

Hannah Barnes was right then. So why try to silence her?

This motion was passed on a vote by the 69 BMA Council members, not by their 190,000 members.

I think the daft parts of the Labour party will leap on this. Other parts of the Labour party know a lot about union politics and will be sceptical.

I am almost without words.

Almost. I think those medics who insist Cass is wrong should put their money where their mouth is and write the PB scripts - and accept the responsibility/liability for them. After all, if they are certain Cass is wrong, why wouldn’t they?

How do they have endometriosis if they are male ? ( stomach upset ?)

The BMA want evidence?

Maybe, just maybe, they should have kept some fucking records then. They've had 30 years.

Yep. As a GP I am absolutely horrified by this. I really don't think the people making these decisions are remotely representative of ordinary doctors views. I am still a BMA member and need to work out who best to write to express my horror and disappointment. 😕

The BMA want evidence but just not the evidence contained in (and confirmed by) meta analysis carried out in Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK’s Cass Review 🤷‍♀️

We want evidence

no no not evidence we don’t like only evidence that agrees with our pre determined position 🤦🏻‍♀️

The Cass review was doomed from the outset - the obfuscation of the selection and appointment process, the dismissal of evidence and the poor methodology was always going to bring it down eventually. The reveal that a nice cosy peerage was all lined up for its creator - only the small cost of enduring a few years of public grief and horror from those actually affected by it - was damning. Too many people cared and noticed.

It has unfortunately done immense, completely unwarranted damage to the young people its creators and supporters claim to want to protect, and will continue to do so for years to come - but there is now so much formal and unambiguous national and international criticism of its flaws on record that it has lost most of its value as a discussion-slaying thought-terminator.

I'm surprised by this announcement, however, and the courage it must have taken to make it in this political climate. I thought it would take years to get here.

Cass is about to become a nightmarish shackle for the 'GC' cause - while preying on the rightful fears of concerned parents and the cowardice of politicians, it actually highlighted the necessity to salvage the disastrous state of trans healthcare in this country. It also shone much-needed light on the insidious influence of Tufton Street and dark money in UK politics.

It will sink Streeting if he digs his heels in once an actual serious review has taken place. It's going to be fascinating to see how he responds.

🙄

The thrashing of a dying ideology

Thanks for the laugh Butterfly. It was a bit overdone on the hyperbole and copium, but still an enjoyable read.

So the BMA want to review the review? If you don't agree with a systematic review you need to do your own systematic review on the topic. Or just read the review and list what they specifically think the issues are - 'methodological weakness' is just waffle