I’m surprised we haven’t seen any reporting or documentation of the ethical clearance. I’m assuming it has been cleared if, as Wes Streeting says, they are to start recruitment in the next few months.
Yes. I would have thought they would have published the trial protocol, the end points they are looking at and the statistics they will be using. Maybe they haven’t decided yet but if they are starting in a few months as you say, they surely have decided these details.
I am disappointed too. There is no way these clinicians should be experimenting on children. Isn’t that what these people have been doing? And it’s a rank failure. Case closed.
Preventing someone's natural puberty to alleviate psychological distress is a strange kind of medicine. Looks like we're leaping and bounding towards transhumanism. I guess we knew the Cass trial recommendation but to see it come up makes me queasy.
It is such a shame that in the US the two political parties decided to make a political football out of the issue and therefore baked in their positions during this last election. The Democrats, especially, having made this a faux civil rights issue, consequently left themselves no room to adjust their stance as new evidence comes in. In fact, it has become nearly a piece of religious dogma on the left, as in the phrase, "trans women are women." No, they are not, and the majority of voters made it clear that they were not going to be stampeded into silent compliance with this extremist position.
I believe all the Republicans have done is looked at the evidence and adopted the sensible position of if you don’t know, do no harm.
It is the Democrats and the left in the rest of the Western World who have pushed this treatment based on ideology rather than evidence down our throats.
I happen to find myself on the same side of the issue as the Republicans, but let's be honest, this is a purely opportunistic move by the right-wing in the US. They don't care a whit for the rights and opportunities of women and generally don't give a damn about the health and well-being of children. All they care about is lowering taxes for the 1% who funds their campaigns and junkets. They have latched on to this as an issue that has traction and they will ride it until it doesn't. But you take your allies where you find them.
Here are some more points. It would be extraordinarily difficult to conduct a meaningful study about puberty blockers and possible psychological benefits.
The human mind is pretty nebulous anyway, how do you assess benefit anyway? Lobotomy doctors assessed increased lethargy and passivity as improvement.
Typically, children put on blockers are love-bombed, garnering attention in the form of "gender affirmation" from parents and others.
They are also heroic, brave, courageous, etc., according to the media. Ask the ABC.
Also, they may have believed for years that blockers would improve their life. How do you tell if a perceived (in the mind) benefit is from drugs or
from love-bombing and fulfilling a dream?
The proposed study differs from real life in that one or both parents may not consent. Also, the sample may not be representative of a real-life sample.
Even being in a study could skew the results. A subject might think they are helping trans rights, especially if they believe the effects are reversible.
The study cannot be double-blinded, which is the golden standard of studies. Subjects may be subject to the Hawthorne effect.
Children are in a weak position to articulate and/or recognise adverse reactions. There are more issues, not the least, it really needs to be followed up for decades.
“Dr Cass counselled against blockers being sold as a “magic bullet,” and noted a recent comprehensive registry study from Finland that suggests the suicide risk in gender clinic populations is driven not by gender distress itself, but by psychiatric co-morbidities for which there are already evidence-based interventions.”
Indeed, the study Dr Cass referred to was titled:
“All-cause and suicide mortalities among adolescents and young adults who contacted specialised gender identity services in Finland in 1996–2019: a register study”,
The Objective, Conclusions and Implications of that study are summarised verbatim:
Objective: To examine all-cause and suicide mortalities in gender-referred adolescents and the impact of psychiatric morbidity on mortality.
Conclusions: Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.
Clinical implications: It is of utmost importance to identify and appropriately treat mental disorders in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria to prevent suicide.
The message: Skip the puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and mutilating surgery and treat the psychiatric conditions!
I note the weird decision of a Victorian Family Court Judge to allow a 16 year old access to cross sex hormones citing the RCH Guidelines as being more persuasive than the Cass review!!!
On the basis that the Cass Review was pushed by political forces despite both parties in the UK endorsing the findings and the Labour Party going further than The Conservative Party in banning the use of hormone blockers and cross sex hormones in children.
The Judiciary in Australia needs to be brought up to speed on the interpretation of medical evidence urgently.
The proponents and practitioners of the ‘Affirmative model’ of gender care have violated a most basic tenet in medicine by implementing the ‘model’ in children, on-mass, without any measure of its safety and efficacy.
The rosy reports of children recently ‘transitioned’ belies the reality that long-term studies (20-40 years) paint a picture of elevated suicide, early death and profound mental health dysfunction.
Of course an appropriate clinical trial (albeit a technically challenging one) must be undertaken forthwith and in the interim all ‘transitions’ in children should cease.
Of recent years we have been hearing the voiced concerns and objections from the gay community to gender affirmative care and the attendant medical intervention, on the basis that such care represents a threat to vulnerable minors who would otherwise develop into well adjusted gay adults. Such objection is essentially objection to clinical collusion ( i.e., medical intervention) driven by gender identity ideology. Perhaps , as an aside, this motive may be behind Wes Streeting’s ( openly gay U.K. Government Health minister) support for the Cass report’s recommendations, conscious or otherwise? If the objection can be openly acknowledged as having an ideological basis, then intervention with cross sex hormones deserves the same challenge across all age group? Medical intervention and social science need part company.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen any reporting or documentation of the ethical clearance. I’m assuming it has been cleared if, as Wes Streeting says, they are to start recruitment in the next few months.
Yes. I would have thought they would have published the trial protocol, the end points they are looking at and the statistics they will be using. Maybe they haven’t decided yet but if they are starting in a few months as you say, they surely have decided these details.
I am disappointed too. There is no way these clinicians should be experimenting on children. Isn’t that what these people have been doing? And it’s a rank failure. Case closed.
Preventing someone's natural puberty to alleviate psychological distress is a strange kind of medicine. Looks like we're leaping and bounding towards transhumanism. I guess we knew the Cass trial recommendation but to see it come up makes me queasy.
They've gotta get working on how to fix horns on the human head and we'll be well on our way to the brave new world of 'species' transition.
It is such a shame that in the US the two political parties decided to make a political football out of the issue and therefore baked in their positions during this last election. The Democrats, especially, having made this a faux civil rights issue, consequently left themselves no room to adjust their stance as new evidence comes in. In fact, it has become nearly a piece of religious dogma on the left, as in the phrase, "trans women are women." No, they are not, and the majority of voters made it clear that they were not going to be stampeded into silent compliance with this extremist position.
I believe all the Republicans have done is looked at the evidence and adopted the sensible position of if you don’t know, do no harm.
It is the Democrats and the left in the rest of the Western World who have pushed this treatment based on ideology rather than evidence down our throats.
I happen to find myself on the same side of the issue as the Republicans, but let's be honest, this is a purely opportunistic move by the right-wing in the US. They don't care a whit for the rights and opportunities of women and generally don't give a damn about the health and well-being of children. All they care about is lowering taxes for the 1% who funds their campaigns and junkets. They have latched on to this as an issue that has traction and they will ride it until it doesn't. But you take your allies where you find them.
I am disappointed. Maybe she is trying to appear middle of the road to appease the tras.
Here are some more points. It would be extraordinarily difficult to conduct a meaningful study about puberty blockers and possible psychological benefits.
The human mind is pretty nebulous anyway, how do you assess benefit anyway? Lobotomy doctors assessed increased lethargy and passivity as improvement.
Typically, children put on blockers are love-bombed, garnering attention in the form of "gender affirmation" from parents and others.
They are also heroic, brave, courageous, etc., according to the media. Ask the ABC.
Also, they may have believed for years that blockers would improve their life. How do you tell if a perceived (in the mind) benefit is from drugs or
from love-bombing and fulfilling a dream?
The proposed study differs from real life in that one or both parents may not consent. Also, the sample may not be representative of a real-life sample.
Even being in a study could skew the results. A subject might think they are helping trans rights, especially if they believe the effects are reversible.
The study cannot be double-blinded, which is the golden standard of studies. Subjects may be subject to the Hawthorne effect.
Children are in a weak position to articulate and/or recognise adverse reactions. There are more issues, not the least, it really needs to be followed up for decades.
“Dr Cass counselled against blockers being sold as a “magic bullet,” and noted a recent comprehensive registry study from Finland that suggests the suicide risk in gender clinic populations is driven not by gender distress itself, but by psychiatric co-morbidities for which there are already evidence-based interventions.”
Indeed, the study Dr Cass referred to was titled:
“All-cause and suicide mortalities among adolescents and young adults who contacted specialised gender identity services in Finland in 1996–2019: a register study”,
The Objective, Conclusions and Implications of that study are summarised verbatim:
Objective: To examine all-cause and suicide mortalities in gender-referred adolescents and the impact of psychiatric morbidity on mortality.
Conclusions: Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.
Clinical implications: It is of utmost importance to identify and appropriately treat mental disorders in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria to prevent suicide.
The message: Skip the puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and mutilating surgery and treat the psychiatric conditions!
I note the weird decision of a Victorian Family Court Judge to allow a 16 year old access to cross sex hormones citing the RCH Guidelines as being more persuasive than the Cass review!!!
On the basis that the Cass Review was pushed by political forces despite both parties in the UK endorsing the findings and the Labour Party going further than The Conservative Party in banning the use of hormone blockers and cross sex hormones in children.
The Judiciary in Australia needs to be brought up to speed on the interpretation of medical evidence urgently.
The proponents and practitioners of the ‘Affirmative model’ of gender care have violated a most basic tenet in medicine by implementing the ‘model’ in children, on-mass, without any measure of its safety and efficacy.
The rosy reports of children recently ‘transitioned’ belies the reality that long-term studies (20-40 years) paint a picture of elevated suicide, early death and profound mental health dysfunction.
Of course an appropriate clinical trial (albeit a technically challenging one) must be undertaken forthwith and in the interim all ‘transitions’ in children should cease.
Of recent years we have been hearing the voiced concerns and objections from the gay community to gender affirmative care and the attendant medical intervention, on the basis that such care represents a threat to vulnerable minors who would otherwise develop into well adjusted gay adults. Such objection is essentially objection to clinical collusion ( i.e., medical intervention) driven by gender identity ideology. Perhaps , as an aside, this motive may be behind Wes Streeting’s ( openly gay U.K. Government Health minister) support for the Cass report’s recommendations, conscious or otherwise? If the objection can be openly acknowledged as having an ideological basis, then intervention with cross sex hormones deserves the same challenge across all age group? Medical intervention and social science need part company.