What a well presented analysis of how we’ve got to where we’ve got in this sorry new world.

A world where nonsense is interpreted as science and the hard-earned lessons that prevent harm in medicine have been cast aside by those who should know better.

A new paradigm where the protagonists are not the usual cohort of science based individuals committed to advancement through hard-earned evidence and scrupulous review of outcomes.

The analogy of the ‘lunatics and the asylum’ is here and now.

Expand full comment
Feb 9Liked by Bernard Lane

Agree with both Andrews. The RACP has also been an enabler of this catastrophe , basically hand balling responsibility to the very same activists that instigated the mess in the first place.

Hopefully slowly sanity will return but not before hundreds if not thousands of children are permanently damaged by this unethical and unproven treatment.

Expand full comment

Yes Andrew, the medical profession lost it’s opportunities to protect vulnerable minors from medical ( hormonal) intervention long ago when it became inexplicably captured by the social science lead ideology of “ gender identity/ fluidity”. It will remain a permanent stain on our profession. You suggest that retrieving the required sanity will be in the political sphere. I agree. Perhaps our profession might be able to , finally, play a part. There is an opportunity for key medical folk to be able to inform and encourage the ( lay) legislators to act to protect future vulnerable children , and , in so doing finally act appropriately as many of us hoped right from when this perverse medicalising arrived. Intuitively, most relevant specialists ( child and adolescent psychiatrists, pardiatricians, and paediatric endocrinologists) have been silently ( due to risks of career retribution for the young ones, and being outed as bigoted transphobic for the more senior ones) appalled by where social science had lead the relatively small subset of their clinically collaborating colleagues. If a secret ballot/ voluntary plebiscite of those relevant specialist members were to provide the evidence of overwhelming concern, such a result may convince future legislators to act. Who might conduct such seeking of majority support? The regulatory body AHPRA comes to mind, as its role would be deemed unbiased, and the results of any survey it might conduct to be ethically beyond any activists’ challenge. Given it’s own charter ,to be there to protect vulnerable patients from harmful or dangerous treatments, it might seem a logical body to conduct such a survey, however , when I did directly approach the office ( I am in Qld) they declined to be able to do so , within their charter and , disappointingly replied that their function would continue to be guided by current legislation! i.e. a cop out. We might wonder how many of the AHPRA board are sufficiently clinically nuanced in this are? Just a thought.

Where might we go from here? Do you think such a tactic worth pursuing, to encourage legislators? The relevant colleges seem, on past events, too infiltrated by this groupthink to be likely champions of long overdue reform. We have only one medical practitioner in the Qld LNP ( likely next to hold government) parliamentary ranks, and he would be strengthened in moving legislation in the house , were he able to rely on, and refer to, such evidence. The “ issue” will be required to be confronted on a State by State basis, Health being a sovereign State responsibility. Just, maybe, Qld could lead the charge?

Expand full comment