Debate about the puberty blockers trial

[Hamletscigar]

This debate with Michael Biggs, Sue Evans and Dr Louise Irvine about the forthcoming puberty blockers trial will be interesting. The more I read about this trial, the more I think the entire idea should be scrapped. The webinar is on this evening (Friday) at 6pm genspect.org/the-nhs-puberty-blocker-study/

I wonder if the debate will discuss how any trial can pass an ethics committee?

Will it be available to watch on line?

Yes. It will be uploaded to YouTube.
Not sure when though.
I'll add to the thread when I spot it, unless someone else does.

It was very good and infomative- not so much a debate though🤷‍♀️. Although, Sue Evans and Michael Biggs had some small points of disagreement about whether there could be any justification for a trial.

Plenty of discussion about the ethics and rationale. "What is the question they are trying to answer?" (or something like this) stuck out for me.

Also, there were questions around if the trial itself was a kind of rationale for continuing provison of PBs (as the numbers are uncapped).

Some great questions from attendees which I think mostly got answered (eg how it could be squared with Cass) though I missed the end.

Edited to add: I was going to say, it would be good to see an actual debate on this, but am wondering who would speak from the pro clinical trial position?

I think this is it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tAiOUhs_FEM

I think Michael Biggs was set to debate that a puberty blocker trial was needed but seemed to be convinced by Louise Irvine and Sue Evans during the discussion that the chances of a decent trial was almost nil

Plenty of discussion about the ethics and rationale. "What is the question they are trying to answer?" (or something like this) stuck out for me.

Was there an answer to this? (I haven't watched it yet)

Yes. That's the right youtube link OldCrone

If you want to jump to that part of the discussion where Sue raises this question, it starts about 1hr 24 mins.

I think conclusion was it's not clear- and that's the problem!

Each possible answer just raises more questions.
Eg, with a 2 year study, even if it is purely to stop current psychological distress, is that actually a good outcome if it is likely to just be delaying distress until further down the line (beyond the study period)?, and as a larger existential question too. Ie; how this would differ from cosmetic surgery to solve mental distress. The old do we fix the body to solve issues with the mind question.

Sue is brilliant and brings all her wisdom to this discussion imo.

That video is excellent. It should be watched by as many people as possible in NHS, Education, and Parliament.

Nobody has defined a positive outcome either. So is 'desistance' a positive outcome and 'persistence' a negative outcome? Can they seriously go ahead without defining this?

Because no one has a Time Machine

Ahh still not watched. Bumping to remind myself and anyone else!