Mumsnet Medics - Details on how to sign the Pro-Science/Cass Letter to the BMA

[fromorbit]

Read the letter text here:
https://notinournamebma.co.uk/open-letter-not-in-our-name-bma/

You can read about the background to the letter here:;
Hannah Barnes, New Statesman
Hundreds of doctors are challenging the BMA’s stance on puberty blockers
https://archive.is/LW0lw

How to sign:

Any medical professional can sign. Your signature/details will be verified. Please share to anyone appropriate. Full details here:
https://notinournamebma.co.uk/

Apparently signatures are approaching 1000 now.

I wasn't scared of this one. I felt supporting Cass should be uncontentious and not something I'm ashamed of.

I'm pleased to see quite a number of my colleagues on there.

No longer feel quite so alone.

That's really good to hear @EmmyPankhurst

Well.done and thank you to everyone who's signed. Anonymous or named. It all helps.

I’ve just seen a friend from uni has signed & I am ridiculously proud of her.

I’m also more amused than I should be by the Chair of the Evelina signing as such given Professor Kelly’s multiple other roles. Wee message to Certain Persons I suspect 😁

Signed. Will forward. This is a step before I cancel my membership if they don’t provide an adequate response to concerns.

Signed (anonymously, I feel slightly ashamed about that). Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

No need to feel shame - the hostile situation has been entirely created to stifle dissent and it's no small thing to stand up against it.

Agree, not everyone can be public about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vxlnkv3x0o

BBC article has a telling quote :

In response, Prof Philip Banfield, chairman of the BMA Council, said that the points raised would be taken on board as part of the organisation’s evaluation of the issues.
However, he said that the decision by NHS England to stop routine prescribing of puberty blockers and then the government ban "goes further than any recommendation in the Cass Review".
He added that the BMA Council had "concerns about the rapid, but selective implementation" of the review proposals.

We all look forward to the Banfield "review" contrasting it to the Cass Review and seeing the "evidence" it has. Just having concerns means nothing.

Hannah Barnes has more details on the Council vote which started this off making this even seem even more odd:

UPDATE: Of the 69 voting members of the BMA’s UK Council, it’s my understanding that 45 took part in votes on a motion critical of the Cass Review. 21 – fewer than half – voted to oppose implementation of the Cass Review recommendations; 11 voted against; 13 abstained...

The BMA's rules say that decisions/motions are approved by simple majority. Abstentions do not count. 29 members voted to “publicly critique” the Cass Review; 8 against; 8 abstentions. Each point of the six-point motion was voted on separately.

https://x.com/hannahsbee/status/1821928733382496719

Wow.

In the news at the moment talk of how paying for compensation claims is straining the public finances. There will be a hell of a lot more compensation cases to deal with when these kids realise what damage has been done to them.

So pleased to discover it was a mere 21 idiots and 13 had the guts to stand up for science.

I'm a bit baffled why those people presumably chose to take part but then abstained?

Crikey, someone there blaming Barnes for male violence and suggesting she should be arrested. They're not well, are they?

There's a lot of abstaining in BMA votes. I'm not sure if it's indecisiveness or fear of being called transphobic etc I suspect mainly the latter in this vote.

Done
As a nursing associate

The BMA's rules say that decisions/motions are approved by simple majority.

Of the 69 members or the 45 taking part in the voting?

21– fewer than half – voted to oppose implementation of the Cass Review recommendations; 29 members voted to “publicly critique” the Cass

It is crazy that the ‘BMA’ represents in the whole of the medical profession in the public’s mind and yet comprises so few people at committee level. Of what kind of medical specialists?

Signed. Will have a look for any colleagues.

he BMA's rules say that decisions/motions are approved by simple majority.

Of the 69 members or the 45 taking part in the voting?

Of those at the meeting I believe.

It is daft. However the publicity that the BMA's council vote is getting is just discrediting the whole anti cass concept amongst medical professionals and the public. Anyone with open mind comes down for reality.

They have nothing solid to say.

So, looks like the BMA is imploding. They are going on a witch hunt over who leaked to the press. I wonder how long it will take for a vote of no confidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/29/witch-hunt-bma-tries-to-identify-who-leaked-planned-opposition-to-cass-review

God they’re an embarrassment.

Confirmation that they're embarrassed at having been shown to be dangerous fools - medics ignorant of the need for evidence based medicine for children.

Are whistleblowers not protected at the BMA?

Interesting the way the Guardian is reporting this. No one believes the coverup in the UK now or the attack on Cass.

Now attack on truth tellers will draw attention to the witch hunt and further discredit the BMA.

The BMA have a specifically time poor, stressed out membership. Especially if they are older doctors with families themselves (parents being a key group for seeing what damage the TRAs are doing to kids).. but anyway most members aren’t going to have loads of time for pushing single issue activism via their union. They simply rely on the BMA for their salary negotiations. Nothing wrong with that.

Organisations like the BMA are therefore ripe for entryist targeting by misogynistic and sexist gender identity activists. There is a well trodden path of the TRA cause seeking out organisations with an existing big media profile, in order to cuckoo in their regressive politics wherever they can. The TRAs have to, because thankfully there isn’t popular support for the TRA position of exploiting kids in service of adult male sexual rights and adult male sexual access to other people.
It’s just hard to swallow that a doctor’s body- of all people- could tolerate this nonsense. It really shows the problems of leadership and governance at the BMA executive and the failures of the supposed medicalal ethical community to stand up to this dangerous exploitative politics.