C Ronny Cheung, Evgenia Abbruzzese, Elaine Lockhart, Ian K Maconochie, Camilla C Kingdon
{"title":"Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows.","authors":"C Ronny Cheung, Evgenia Abbruzzese, Elaine Lockhart, Ian K Maconochie, Camilla C Kingdon","doi":"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara <i>et al</i>-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":8150,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara et al-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.
期刊介绍:
Archives of Disease in Childhood is an international peer review journal that aims to keep paediatricians and others up to date with advances in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood diseases as well as advocacy issues such as child protection. It focuses on all aspects of child health and disease from the perinatal period (in the Fetal and Neonatal edition) through to adolescence. ADC includes original research reports, commentaries, reviews of clinical and policy issues, and evidence reports. Areas covered include: community child health, public health, epidemiology, acute paediatrics, advocacy, and ethics.