Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June

[RoseInAPot]

Opposition day debates today, instigated by the LOTO Kemi Badenoch. She has chosen two issues: defence, and the puberty blocker trial.

Sometime this afternoon, will be worth a watch.

LibDems already disrupting with an amendment: (see screenshot)

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/105341/Html?subType=Standard#_idTextAnchor004

Ooh, but I have to go out!

That "amendment" is laughable. So the Lib Dems basically want to have a debate about something else entirely! 🙄

Thank OP. Looking forward to it.
whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal55909

there is absolutely no justification to giving a confused, unhappy child, puberty blockers.....the harm they cause is lifelong

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

With respect, I don't think I'd be taking medical advice from you. PBs are not Smarties.

Not this again.

we genuinely don't know if there are harms.

So, let's experiment on children until we find out if it harms them or not.

You have no problem with that?

We do know they cause harm, from when they have been used for just a few years for precocious puberty. We have evidence from those patients.

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

We're talking about possible harms to healthy children.

This is not about prescribing drugs to children who might have a genuine need for them (e.g. precocious puberty)

The defence debate seems to be finishing now so I expect the puberty blocker debate to start shortly

Cass believes without a trial young people will continue to get drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes."
"Today we have young people turning up in the clinics on testosterone at 11, which we know is irreversible," she said.
"It may be that if they were prescribed puberty blockers instead, that would give more time for the therapist to work with them and perhaps come to a different solution than a long-term life on medication."

How are 11-year-old children getting hold of drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes"? Where are they getting the money to buy them? This should be treated in the same way as if they were obtaining any other illegal drugs. If their parents are buying them for them, the parents should be arrested, as should the people selling them.

Her reasoning about it being more harmful for children not to be prescribed hormone blockers seems to be based on the assumption that they will get them, or hormones, from unregulated sources. Is there any other condition where prescribing a drug for children is done purely to prevent them from obtaining them, or other more dangerous drugs, illegally?

Good on her. At least someone isn’t saying it’s fine.

One of the harms they cause is that they prevent the child from healthy development. There is plenty of evidence for this. It is the entire purpose for which they are prescribed to these children.

Mysteriously they do. Check out some of the drugs, particularly Lupron. They do cause well documented harm. Adults are recommended to take them for the shortest time possible. https://www.chelwest.nhs.uk/your-visit/patient-leaflets/medicine-services/gonadotropin-releasing-agonists

GNRH agonists are prescribed for as short a period as possible to children with precocious puberty in an attempt to arrest unhealthy development and restore healthy development.

They are prescribed to adults with certain cancers in an attempt to arrest unhealthy development of the cancer and restore health.

It is deeply unethical to prescribe these drugs to healthy children in order to deliberately arrest their healthy development and deny them the opportunity to develop healthy adolescent and adult bodies. It denies them their RIGHT to develop healthy adolescent and adult bodies.

They’re also prescribed to women for a host of hormone exacerbated conditions such as fibroids and endemetriosis, and also for IVF in some cases. Again for the shortest time possible because they are recognised as having a lot of side effects.

How can you reduce something that doesn't exist? The very use of "reduce" necessarily means that the harm is already there. So even Cass admits that these drugs are harmful.

I've PMed you

The debate has just started

Gene therapy?! Wonder where that came from.

Eh?? In relation to trans kids/people? How does that work??

I think the member concerned had perhaps simply misheard "GNRH" for "gene". I suppose if you ignorantly imagine it's possible for people to change sex and you know sex has something to do with genes you might imagine we were giving them gene therapy to help them change sex... but it's hard to imagine being that ignorant and choosing to display the fact in the House of Commons. However, I suppose we select our MPs for being willing to do that kind of thing!

I want to say, "Thank you for the explanation," but the idea that anyone out there would really believe that humans can change sex hurts my brain 😭