BMA drops opposition to Cass review into child gender treatment

[Igneococcus]

But they still want to prescribe puberty blockers:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d4075c16-056a-4a73-bd3a-5fd501534a2e?shareToken=8615f265757fbed10a1605ee94f52f42&ver=article

Entirely not the point, but what on earth is "social murder"? I mean, I've heard of social death (suffered it several times myself, tbh) but this is a new one.

I have no idea, fractals

This is good news. Shame they're holding the line on PBs but great that they've stepped back from criticising Cass.

It's hard to turn a stupid-tanker....

But it is turning……just slowly. It’ll turn a lot faster in the US when the lawsuits start piling up

Very good news. Science prevails and after the research as recommended by Cass, their want, to prescribe puberty, will also be dropped

The phrase (see below) has been much in the air in the US over the past week or so. It was used by a toxic individual called Hasan Piker when in an interview with the New York Times he used the concept as a sort of justification for the assassination of the CEO of a health insurance company. The NYT interviewers seemed to view this favourably.

The term "social murder," famously coined by Friedrich Engels to describe deaths caused by societal neglect or capitalist policies.

https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s876

bigger I think….

”The BMA’s long awaited critique of the Cass review has largely vindicated the findings of the original landmark review into gender identity services for young people.
The BMA report, published today, concludes that the evidence base for puberty suppression and gender affirming hormones is limited and uncertain”

View B's support for PB is based on...nothing very much, 'Cass may', seems quite a nebulous foundation to build a treatment pathway for children that, as acknowledged by View A, involves prescribing drugs with 'known and plausible harms.'

Don't politics constantly interfer in what Doctors can and cannot do? The recent assisted death farce is surely a demonstration of that. The rules around abortion availability is another.

Gosh that's taken them a while to begrudgingly accept her work. Another step in the right direction.

They still sound totally obnoxious. They're cross about the loss to their autonomity as doctors to prescribe pubity blockers even though there's no evidence they work and abundant evidence of harms!!!

Frightening 🫣

In The Times…the BMA say that not being allowed to prescribe PBs is a threat to the autonomy of a doctor. Dominance, control, outrage at you can’t tell me what I can or cannot do runs through this whole ideology.

Snap

Professor David Strain, the chair of the BMA’s board of science and the report’s lead author, told The Times that “the baroness has been vindicated in the way she approached the data”.

He praised her methodological approach, and when asked to name a single one of Cass’s 32 recommendations which the BMA opposed he said: “I can’t.”

They're really choking on this, aren't they 🙄

Well done Dr Cass, vindicated again ✊

Very pleased to see this. Note that they can't resist displaying their professional arrogance with the "but only we should decide whether to prescribe these dangerous pbs to vulnerable children".
Apparently the group was more evenly balanced for once with extreme transactivists being 6 of the group with 4 opposed to pbs for the young and two neutral.

Hannah Barnes on X

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2052140358134272227.html#google_vignette

Agree Blackbird. So forget NICE, no need to rest any drugs, just give my poor overworked GP total freedom to prescribe any damn thing no matter how much harm it does. Well I can’t see any problems with that at all #sarcasm alert

*test any drugs 🤦‍♀️

I agree that the BMA is having to concede that the Cass report was correct through gritted teeth, but I would stop short of saying much positive about Baroness Cass herself, having heard and read her opinion pieces since the publication of the Cass report. The Cass report (and the BMA review) simply summarise the data, which is either of poor quality or indicates that gender affirming care is overwhelmingly harmful. A summary of the data couldn’t really say otherwise - the data is the data.

Cass herself, however, seems to be clinging on to the possibility that there is such a thing as a “trans child” who would benefit from medical intervention (despite all the data strongly suggesting that is not the case) and that one day it will be possible to conclusively identify such children. She believes in this so strongly that she is prepared to sacrifice the health of hundreds of children - most, if not all, of whom almost certainly are not these magical “trans children” - to carry out a supposedly well-controlled (it’s not) study of puberty blockers on gender confused children.

I believe in the review that bears her name because the review just summarises the data/research. I don’t believe in her farther than I could throw her.

I read this more as grasping at straws to find a basis for opposition - they can't actually find anything wrong with the recommendation so they're manufacturing a 'professional autonomy' arguement to save face.

I thought the Puberty Blockers Trial was suspended? Surely the BMA (union) endorsing Cass helps in that suspension?

Not exactly - Cass herself wants the trial to go ahead.

Does it also mean that the 6 who voted for View B are trans ideologies, firm believers in giving children drugs. Also is it not odd that after 2 years analysing Cass, this organisation of medical experts cannot find a single thing wrong with any of Cass's recommendations, yet we have a group of 6 out of 12 still saying blockers should be prescribed. It’s surely not helpful that the BMA can not provide a unified decision.

Perhaps that too.

But it struck me that for the BMA individuals opposing Cass (and many other trans ideologists involved in the growing number of tribunals) it is based on a reflexive refusal to be told what they can/can’t do as much as any actual adherence to the ideology, which underpins much of the strength of insistence. A need for control / assert their views over others loos personal.

@Cailin66I would assume yes, given how long the BMA has clung on to this. And presume that in order to get a the report out at all some concession had to be made to them.
There's going to be similar people in lots of professions, either genuine believers or unable to admit they could be so wrong.