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/

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

He's certainly one to watch.....

I wonder what else he's done in the past - and more importantly, with whom.

Dr David Strain is quoted in the article linked by the OP in the BMA (partial) reverse ferret. He specialises in geriatric medicine and is opining about 'lived experience'. Seems to be defending the bit the BMA haven't reversed on.

Edited to add

Apologies, he's leading the 'critique', so not just defending it. I wonder how he voted?

This is the actual press release from the BMA releases the day before the article was published https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-confirms-support-to-undertake-its-evaluation-of-the-cass-review-from-a-position-of-neutrality

What's really interesting (worth noting?) is that it turns about the BMA board has its own Board of Science.

So if they have this why did they ever discuss and pass a position on a medical issue based on political allegiances rather than ask their Board of Sciene.

... The BMA, of which I chair its board of science, has a long history of appraising evidence. The evaluation and dissemination of scientific and medical knowledge was the founding principle of the BMA in 1832. At that time, its focus was the management of a cholera outbreak; today the health issues are far more wide-ranging. ...

So clearly not a sudden change to actuall evidence.

... As the lead of the BMA evaluation of the Cass Review, I have no preconceptions and have every intention to lead our evaluation from a position of neutrality ...

Which is good to know, but you would like to think the main Board also worked on the premise.

(More and more it seems that organisations overseen / run by Boards are just disasters waiting to happen.)

The declared position of neutrality in paragraph 1 is somewhat undermined by the heavy bias in paragraph 2 😂🤦‍♀️

"Garnered controversy"..... Rather emotive but I'll keep reading....

"Welcomed by many". OK great! Back on track. Although ideally the word "while" wasn't needed as an opener to that sentence.... Anyway, carry on..

Oh, now you're just giving a long list of the types of people you say don't support it. FFS 🤦‍♀️

They sound about as impartial as a BBC report on gender identity.

The last paragraph is definitely not neutral

“According to the founding principles of the BMA, our evaluation will be evidence-led, starting from a position of neutrality. I cannot predict the outcome of our evaluation. However, I am clear that we will hear different perspectives, always prioritising the needs of transgender children and young people, who deserve the very best care.”

"Transgender children". I'd like to see their definition of a "transgender child". Remember that the term "transgender" was promoted by groups like Press for Change to include both transvestites and transsexuals as a way of removing the sexual element from the two terms, and paving the way for children to be included under the trans umbrella.

There's some interesting stuff about that in this thread from 2018.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?reply=83696520

Link goes to a post which covers this particular issue.

So are 'trans' or 'transgender' children transvestites or transsexuals? Is "transgender child" as used in this press release by the BMA a medical term?

So if they have this why did they ever discuss and pass a position on a medical issue based on political allegiances rather than ask their Board of Science.

It's humiliating isn't it? I'd feel compelled to resign in embarrassment if this were me.

Surely they would need to do another review including everything that Dr Cass did in order to see if they agree or disagree with her findings?

So repeating her work, but with a geriatrician in charge instead of a paediatrician.

Why?

I just mean that I really think a geriatrician reviewing a 4 year study about children, done by an experienced paediatrician, is a complete waste of time. Unless he thinks she got it all wrong and he can do it better.

There seems no end to the arrogance of mediocre men who see fit to lecture the rest of us about what a woman is and why transitioning children below the age of consent is oh so desirable?

But this is the double standard again.

If for instance this assessment is just about was the Cass research done in a professionally accepted way, it still doesn't explain why they are only now saying they will do it.

I suppose because they made themselve look really stupid and unprofessional by letting TRA entryist hijack the board.

Or it is just a way to prolong any meaningful position.

ie the process will be the punishment.

Well spotted re their mention of "trans children".

I hadn't read their full statement as my eyes had already rolled in to the back of my head after the second paragraph.

Their use of this term is incredibly revealing. It's definitely possible for someone to use this term and still conclude that they support the Cass Report (e.g. Wes Streeting used the term in parliament in the debate on 15th April, when he spoke out in support of the Cass recommendations) but it certainly demonstrates a bias, not neutrality. To be fair though, Cass herself demonstrates bias with the whole section that she dedicates to gender identity, where she positions it as a factual thing that we all have.

Perhaps this is the true purpose of what they're doing:

Or it is just a way to prolong any meaningful position.

Maybe not so much from a "the process is the punishment" perspective but to allow reverse-ferreting if needed at any point, while still ostensibly sounding like they are experts. It gives them space to gaslight everyone in to thinking that all they were doing was acting as doctors seeking the clarity that due diligence had been done when the evidence was systematically reviewed.

I agree it's likely a face saving exercise having beclowned themselves and brought the medical profession into disrepute by their previous dismissal of Cass.
The irony is that they fail to realise that their appointment of a geriatrician to review a 4 year study into an aspect of paediatric medicine conducted by one of the foremost paediatric experts in the country makes them look foolish. Presumably there've been many eye rolls amongst the medical profession embarrassed by the arrogance of this trade union and their incorrect assumption that the 4 year review didn't talk to countless young people caught up in all this.

I'm embarrassed for them

https://archive.ph/CLOG3

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/29/bma-cass-review-child-gender-services-scotland/

that's even more embarrassed for them.

Oh my god

It's actually frightening that highly educated doctors so lack in critical thinking skills that they believe a partisan blog over a national 4 year study undertaken by expert medics. What on earth must their professional practice be like - or are they unemployable and just lurk in the BMA offices bringing the medical profession into disrepute? 😑

Thank you for sharing this.

The last two paragraphs of the article sum it up beautifully. The medical profession is waking up.

I wonder was it Erin Reed's blog????

I'm betting it was because that blog gets quoted a lot by Americans who object to the Cass Review.

https://benryan.substack.com/p/activist-blogger-erin-reed-cant-stop

I expect it was. Erin of the Chin and the mad assertions. Farksake.

Presumably the other thing was the paper by the “Yale [Lack of] Integrity Project” - nobody minded that not being peer-reviewed while shrieking Cass’ work should have been. (Honestly, it’s all so second-hand-cringe embarrassing. And academics who co-author papers with themselves shouldn’t be commenting on matters either, frankly…)