Nearly 900 doctors sign letter urging BMA to abandon inquiry into Cass review

[IwantToRetire]

(sorry if already posted - really struggling with MN search function )

Not in Our Name BMA

We note that the sources the BMA is relying on to cast doubt on the review are authored by groups with serious conflicts of interest and have not been through peer-review.

Full text of letter and option to sign for members at https://notinournamebma.co.uk/open-letter-not-in-our-name-bma/

The BBC have covered the story rather than ostriching 😱

Apologies, please clarify for my autistic brain thats very tired today - is this something the doctors have signed because they agree with us wise folks re the trans cult nonsense?
Why are the BMA proposing an inquiry into the CASS review?
(sorry if the answers to these questions are really obvious!)

The BMA have announced their own review into the Cass Review due to 'concerns'. You can read their statement here: 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

Many doctors are horrified that the BMA are even taking a stance on this (they are a trade union, not a clinical org; their position is manifestly anti-evidence base etc etc - read the letter) and have therefore signed. So yes, these are doctors that think that Cass should be taken seriously and not undermined.

Cass not CASS - it was a review by Dr Hilary Cass

We've signed it because we respect the findings of the Cass review, and want to protect children. The BMA is pushing puberty blockers. We're disgusted by that.

Why are the BMA proposing an inquiry into the CASS review?

The BMA is a doctors union which also likes to think it is a professional body - it has a science committee apparently.

Most doctors aren't really that interested in medical politics but join for the employment protection. In recent years junior doctors (well all doctors TBH) have been shafted by changes to training, pay and employment conditions which radicalised a lot of them.

So elected BMA reps are now more likely to be junior doctors and more likely to be interested in radical left wing politics. Most specifically the Deputy BMA chair is a junior doctor who is v into trans politics.

This isn;t totally out of the ordinary for the BMA. Back in the 90s they were always campaigning to ban boxing, an issue most doctors didn't give a stuff about.

Anyway medicine as a career understandably attracts people who want to help change the world for the better. Medical politics attracts these people even more. Trans has built on standing up for the underdog and nobody wants to be called a bigot.

The vote at Council got headed off when someone leaked it to Hannah Barnes. So they have tried appeasing their own hotheaded reps, and their pissed off membership, by kicking it to the Science Committee for them to do a review while they hope the issue goes away

It’s insanity. Puberty blockers will destroy the NHS if they continue to prescribe them when the information is available. How many cases will there be in 10-20 years when these children realise they do want to be fertile, or not have weak bones or undeveloped testes.

Absolutely. The prospect of a slew of lawsuits if practice is not changed now should be terrifying to all taxpayers.

Autistic and couldn't figure this out either!

In this case I would say 'follow the money'.
As I wonder how many of those at the top of the BMA are linked to the pharmacy companies that would be supplying the drugs to these people for the rest of their lives.

https://x.com/hannahsbee/status/1821928733382496719
Hannah Barnes on the BMA vote

Not autistic but couldn't figure it out, or at least how to post it clearly.

I should probably have added the link to the thread about the BMA Committee proposing to vote on questioning the Cass review.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5121019-bma-to-vote-to-disavow-the-cass-review

So the letter is individual Doctors telling their "governing body" they dont support them.

The BMA is nobody's governing body! It is a trade union!!

@IwantToRetire nope absolutely not.

The BMA is not the doctors governing body. It's a trade union that thinks it can talk about clinical topics as well.

The doctors regulator is the GMC
The professional organizations are the Royal Colleges

The BMA is not the doctors governing body

Sorry - copied from earlier thread on FWR - which nobody seems to have complained about!

And will be a point of reference for posters like me who try ot "fact check" before posting.

So if you are concerned about this misrepresentation better get that changed!

The BMA is the doctors' 'trade union'.

On 31st July they announced they were going to do a review of Dr Cass's review gender identity services for children and young people

It was clear that the BMA was critical of the Cass review:
(Yes, they rejected it before they reviewed it..)
Members of the BMA’s Council recently voted in favour of a motion which asked the Association to ‘publicly critique the Cass Review’, after doctors and academics in several countries, including the UK, voiced concern about weaknesses in the methodologies used in the Review and problems arising from the implementation of some of the recommendations.
BMA to undertake an evaluation of the Cass Review on gender identity services for children and young people - BMA media centre - BMA

Hundreds of members of the BMA have signed a 'Not in our name' letter to the BMA because they disagree with the BMA's negative attitude to the Cass review.

I think that's a fair summing up?

This is Prof Philip Banfield, chairman of the BMA Council. Perhaps he just likes rainbows? It's the profile picture he chose for the BMA website. I had to copy it from the thumbnail, the BMA website security stopped me from copying it directly. So, apologies that it's a bit blurry.

They could be NHS rainbows, it's often hard to tell what the message is in Healthcare.

I do not pretend to know anything about the world of medicine, but my understanding is that the BMA is a trade union. What are are they doing getting involved in professional policy? Is this not crazy overreach?

It's what the BMA does as it fancies itself some sort of professional body/arbiter of medical ethics

It's also the reason eligible doctors join the HCSA to get a union that just focuses on being a union.

Signed by Phil Hammond

It's common enough that unions are involved in "progressive" activism, so I don't think there needs to be a financial motive in play. Simply an "oppressed group" that the BMA can help with experimental medications and surgery.

Well, if Amnesty International and Liberty can get involved in the Cass Review...

Another article in the Times

https://archive.ph/h14RC bypass paywall

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/bma-members-resign-in-revolt-over-transgender-children-stance-nvqd0vgv5

Perhaps I'm being unfair to the BMA but i find myself angry that a fucking union has the arrogance to think it can mark Dr Cass's homework. They should stay in their lane, perhaps look into the concerns of doctors who think they're breaking their Hippocratic Oath if they prescribe wrong sex hormones.

The comments are, as usual very cross. With lots of doctors who've left the BMA commenting.