BMA to undertake an evaluation of the Cass Review on gender identity services for children and young people - eviltoast

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.

A ‘task and finish’ group, established by the BMA’s Chair of Council Professor Philip Banfield, who will also appoint the group’s chairperson, will pay particular attention to the methodology used to underpin the report’s recommendations. There have been ongoing discussions within the BMA about the Cass Review since it was published; before that the BMA attended meetings with Dr Cass when the review was being written. These, together with the Council’s wishes, have helped to shape what will be a detailed, evidence-led piece of work.

The BMA is calling for a pause to the implementation of the Cass Review’s recommendations whilst the task and finish group carries out its work. It is expected to be completed towards the end of this year. In the meantime, the BMA believes transgender and gender-diverse patients should continue to receive specialist healthcare, regardless of their age.

The BMA has been critical of proposals to ban the prescribing of puberty blockers to children and young people with gender dysphoria, calling instead for more research to help form a solid evidence base for children’s care – not just in gender dysphoria but more widely in paediatric treatments. The Association believes clinicians, patients and families should make decisions about treatment on the best available evidence, not politicians.

  • wren@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s frustrating how slow the scientific review process can be, especially when you know that evidence can often be twisted or “misinterpreted” by policymakers, and even more frustratingly so when people’s lives are at stake.

    Here’s hoping this review is kind, competent, quick, clear, and ethical.