British Medical Association Calls Cass Review “Unsubstantiated,” Passes Resolution Against Implementation

5 comments

1. “This meeting recognises that the provision of gender identity services in the United Kingdom is inadequate, and that transgender people should be treated with compassion and respect for their bodily autonomy.

   Following the publication of the Cass Review on Gender Identity Services for children and young people, this meeting is concerned about its impact on transgender healthcare provision because of its unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and exclusion of trans-affirming evidence.

   Therefore, this meeting calls on the BMA to: 

   i. Publicly critique the Cass Review;  

   ii. Lobby and work with other relevant organisations and stakeholders to oppose the implementation of the recommendations made by the Cass Review;  

   iii. Lobby the Government and NHS in all four nations to ensure continuity in provision of transgender healthcare for patients younger than 18 years old;  

   iv. Lobby the Government and NHS in all four nations to ensure continuity in provision of transgender healthcare for patients aged 18 or older;  

   v. Publicly state support for transgender people, particularly transgender youth, and provision of prompt access to gender identity services and treatment at all ages;

   vi. Condemn the increasing political transphobia which is ostracising transgender people and discriminating against them by blocking their access to healthcare”

   -the full text of the BMA resolution

   (edited for formatting)

2. The BMA is a union, not a clinical body.

   The clinical side of the operation is the BMJ, which supports the Cass review.

   Edit for clarity- the BMJ is a medical journal which typically provides commentary on clinical matters for the organisation.

   Strictly speaking the regulative clinical bodies are the Royal Colleges which also support the Cass review.

3. Odd thing for a trade union to do. Have they ever conducted “independent reviews” of previous systematic reviews in medicine? Do their members know their fees are being used to convene panels to review articles published in the BMJ which have already been peer reviewed?

   I’ll check in with a few colleagues who are BMA members later and see what their take is.

4. The Cass review was appalling

   Disregarded most research, cherry picked and lied to push an agenda she immediately backpedaled on once it was accepted

5. Get it gone