Appendix 4 in the Cass Review revealed that 6 out of the 7 adult GDC clinics currently operating in the UK refused to collect or share their patient followup data. If you want better care for struggling LGBT kids, you need the data.
Appendix 4 in the Cass Review revealed that 6 out of the 7 adult GDC clinics currently operating in the UK refused to collect or share their patient followup data. If you want better care for struggling LGBT kids, you need the data.
That looks really, bad, doctors of all people should know that evidence is everything in medicine.
The lack of follow up and record keeping at Tavistock was shocking. I’m all for expanding the range of providers to tackle waiting lists but they have to bring a more professional approach to providing care and a more holistic view if the patients.
Its important to note that the evidence is there, they just applied an impossible and unethical standard to it to dismiss all but one study. Of those identified to be involved in this report, multiple conversion therapist organisations were consulted but no trans advocacy organizations.
The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies. Imagine if they said the same of cancer treatments.
I’d have to look at their exact rationale to know for sure why they excluded those studies.
Unfortunately disproportionately high standards for evidence isn’t a new thing in the UK medical establishment though, NICE’s recent rejection of ketamine for depression was pretty shaky IMO.
In this case, they used an adaptation of Newcastle Ottowa scale, however they didn’t provide an appendix of what those adaptations actually were. The specific points were raised that the studies weren’t double blind, which would obviously be a violation of basic ethics in this case. There were multiple conversion therapists involved in the report so its pretty reasonable to assume malicious intent.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood what you meant by “The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies.” I thought you meant they had excluded studies for being double blind, which would obviously be quite weird.
It’s frustratingly common in mental health (which gender dysphoria is still officially considered) for regulators to demand double blind studies, no matter how strong the evidence from observational studies is.