Feb 2Liked by Bernard Lane

"At the screening stage, it was determined that the [RCH] guideline did not include a funding statement, an evidence base for the recommendations or information about conflict of interest, and that it would not meet the portal selection criteria"

A lot missing!!!! Insane.

Thank you for the great reporting!

Expand full comment

On the surface this sounded like good news, an appropriate, no holds barred investigation of the status-quo. However when the nature of a review has limits as proposed in the text:

“However, the nature of the review and the makeup of the seven-person evaluation panel suggest that non-invasive alternatives to “gender-affirming care”—such as exploratory psychotherapy—will not be seriously considered”.

It seems that the ‘review’ will not address the very issues that need addressing.

Expand full comment

It will take a change of Government before sanity returns to this subject. And even that might not be enough if the Libs don’t have the guts to confront the Trans lobby.

Expand full comment

“It is important we continue to review our models of care and consider any evidence that becomes available to ensure we are providing gender-diverse children and young people access to the best and safest lifesaving care and support.”

It is pleasing that there has not been a single child suicide in this cohort in Australia.

HOWEVER, there does exist a dreadfully high suicide rates among another group of children that does not seem to raise similar commitments to providing the best and safest lifesaving care and support:

The age-specific death rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child suicide is 8.3 deaths per 100,000 compared to 2.1 per 100,000 for non-Indigenous children.

Now there’s a real problem!

Expand full comment