I find it difficult to rationalise the position of the RACP on the Affirmative model of gender ‘care’ of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
On the 5th of March 2020 it was stated thus:
"The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgemental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families"
Note: No reference to the need for ‘evidence’
On May 14th 2024 I wrote to the President-elect and Board Chair of the RACP questioning the ‘strong support’ for an untrialled, irreversible and sterilising procedures in children .
The response I received was not extensive but did include the following:
Due to the current evidence-gap the RACP does not have a position on clinical care that involves the use of hormone therapy in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.
Due to the multidisciplinary needs of individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, the RACP advice is that the Federal Government should develop a nationally consistent framework, through an evidence-based process.
I would have thought that given the acknowledgment of an ‘evidence gap’ the advice should be to cease such interventions until such time as evidence was available, or at the very least, until a mechanism to recruit evidence was put in place.
Thanks Guy, I just thought it would be of relevance to our statutory regulatory body of AHPRA’s position in the ( slow but likely inexorable) challenge to GAC ( specifically for minors) here in Australia for the effect of the closure of GIDS at Tavistock to have reverberated through the UK’s equivalent body. We were to understand that there were a number of class actions underway in the UK and would be of interest to see if the targets of the litigants extended beyond individual clinicians and the GIDS body. Legal nets are usually cast wide, so who would be surprised if their relevant colleges and their statutory regulatory body were not to become deemed culpable , and therefore targeted through historical inaction? I just thought Dr Cass might have discussed such detail, given it might have relevance here, where our courts historically follow British legal precedence. From Bernard’s reply , my question remains.
A recent ABC News article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease’.
Bernard, presumably, on reading your post on the NAPP-sponsored webinar, you were a registrant. Perhaps it came up in the Q&A, but curiously there remains no reference to an expected role for the statutory regulatory body of AHPRA in regards to challenge to GAC for minors. Do we know of any approach by concerned clinicians to AHPRA, given the body of plausible reasons to hold legally obligated Gender Affirmative Care’s feet to the fire? The release of the WPATH files should have been the last straw. The UK have their equivalent regulatory body and it would be of interest to know if it played any role in the challenge, and eventual closure of GIDS at Tavistock. Was it discussed in the webinar? If not, what does that tell us about the regulatory body’s role , and responsibility? When it all eventually “hits the fan”, would AHPRA not be expected to be deemed to carry their share of censure through historical inaction? The UK outcome might have provided some food for thought for our Australian regulatory body , or concerned clinician’s option , via AHPRA, of a tactical approach ? If not, why not?
Yes, we need not be shocked, as the body is the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory AGENCY, rather than Authority. So it assumes its function to be that of an arm of government and therefore subject to party politics. Here was I naively thinking we might expect its charter to consider complaints to be adjudicated on nothing less than on an evidence based one. No wonder the clinical activists are comfortably basking in knowing they have the health bureaucracy, and the minister, to quarantine them from legitimate challenge. For now.
Agree, Andrew and although not as culpable as AHPRA, I believe the RACP holds some responsibility after its tacit support of the affirmative model and its refusal to change its advice to the Minister despite the Cass report and the mounting criticism of GAC.
I find it difficult to rationalise the position of the RACP on the Affirmative model of gender ‘care’ of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
On the 5th of March 2020 it was stated thus:
"The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgemental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families"
Note: No reference to the need for ‘evidence’
On May 14th 2024 I wrote to the President-elect and Board Chair of the RACP questioning the ‘strong support’ for an untrialled, irreversible and sterilising procedures in children .
The response I received was not extensive but did include the following:
Due to the current evidence-gap the RACP does not have a position on clinical care that involves the use of hormone therapy in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.
Due to the multidisciplinary needs of individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, the RACP advice is that the Federal Government should develop a nationally consistent framework, through an evidence-based process.
I would have thought that given the acknowledgment of an ‘evidence gap’ the advice should be to cease such interventions until such time as evidence was available, or at the very least, until a mechanism to recruit evidence was put in place.
Thanks Guy, I just thought it would be of relevance to our statutory regulatory body of AHPRA’s position in the ( slow but likely inexorable) challenge to GAC ( specifically for minors) here in Australia for the effect of the closure of GIDS at Tavistock to have reverberated through the UK’s equivalent body. We were to understand that there were a number of class actions underway in the UK and would be of interest to see if the targets of the litigants extended beyond individual clinicians and the GIDS body. Legal nets are usually cast wide, so who would be surprised if their relevant colleges and their statutory regulatory body were not to become deemed culpable , and therefore targeted through historical inaction? I just thought Dr Cass might have discussed such detail, given it might have relevance here, where our courts historically follow British legal precedence. From Bernard’s reply , my question remains.
. . . . and for those who may have doubted:
A recent ABC News article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease’.
Bernard, presumably, on reading your post on the NAPP-sponsored webinar, you were a registrant. Perhaps it came up in the Q&A, but curiously there remains no reference to an expected role for the statutory regulatory body of AHPRA in regards to challenge to GAC for minors. Do we know of any approach by concerned clinicians to AHPRA, given the body of plausible reasons to hold legally obligated Gender Affirmative Care’s feet to the fire? The release of the WPATH files should have been the last straw. The UK have their equivalent regulatory body and it would be of interest to know if it played any role in the challenge, and eventual closure of GIDS at Tavistock. Was it discussed in the webinar? If not, what does that tell us about the regulatory body’s role , and responsibility? When it all eventually “hits the fan”, would AHPRA not be expected to be deemed to carry their share of censure through historical inaction? The UK outcome might have provided some food for thought for our Australian regulatory body , or concerned clinician’s option , via AHPRA, of a tactical approach ? If not, why not?
We’re told by Mark Butler’s officials that Ahpra will use the RCH treatment guidelines as a benchmark for complaints against doctors.
Yes, we need not be shocked, as the body is the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory AGENCY, rather than Authority. So it assumes its function to be that of an arm of government and therefore subject to party politics. Here was I naively thinking we might expect its charter to consider complaints to be adjudicated on nothing less than on an evidence based one. No wonder the clinical activists are comfortably basking in knowing they have the health bureaucracy, and the minister, to quarantine them from legitimate challenge. For now.
Agree, Andrew and although not as culpable as AHPRA, I believe the RACP holds some responsibility after its tacit support of the affirmative model and its refusal to change its advice to the Minister despite the Cass report and the mounting criticism of GAC.