Are you actually going to respond to the points made then? Because as I said, it seems like you haven't actually read this report you're claiming to know so much about, and instead are just trying and deflect onto other things.
Children can't make informed decisions about their own health in this, or any other area, at least not outside of describing symptoms. This shouldn't be a remotely controversial statement.
As I said in my other posts on the matter (and as have gone ignored by you and the other posters I posed the questions to) - we have determined that children and young people are not capable of making informed decisions on a number of things, and as a result, they are legally ringfenced from doing certain things. They can not consent to sex until they are 16 (in the UK). They cannot vote in general elections until they are 18. They cannot gamble until they are 18. They cannot even watch certain films in the cinema, or buy certain video games from a shop, until they are 18. I will add to this that they cannot get genital or nipple piercings until they are 16. They cannot get tattoos until they are 18.
I will ask again, what is different about a child's ability to make in an informed decision about potentially (or certainly in the case of surgeries) irreversible medical pathways than it is for them to make an informed decision about the above?
I will also point out again, that the Cass Interim Report has highlighted the severe lack of evidence supporting these medical pathways.
My position is that they should not be medicalised until there is enough evidence to support that medicalisation. I would also suppose that it could be possible once they've reached an agreeable age (be it 16, 18, 21, etc.) that is reasonably in-line with the other minimum ages we consider young people to be able to make informed decisions.
Prior to this, as I said, they should be left to live and dress (within reason) how they choose to, without intervention from the adults around them. I believe this would fall under social transition if a child decides they would prefer to use differing pronouns and dress in a manner not typically associated with their birth sex.
I implore you to actually engage with the posts I am making, instead of these repeated avoidance tactics.
The Cass Interim Report literally states that these extensive medical reviews by experts are not happening.
It states that clinical decisions have not been made by appropriate clinical experts.
It states that children are not routinely being offered therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments. The same puberty blocking hormone treatments that it states do not have sufficient evidence regarding their long-term effects to recommend the continued use of.
It states that staff have felt forced into providing unwaveringly affirming care, despite this being in conflict with their medical training.
It states that once these treatments have begun, there is a drop-off, rather than an intensifying of appointments, as would be expected. It states that there is little in the way of follow-up appointments to determine whether these treatments have even worked.
It states that there are still fundamental disagreements over what exactly gender dysphoria is. The very thing these treatments are supposed to be for.
The Tavistock, despite the best efforts of the staff working there, absolutely was shut down for its severe failings. It's precisely why the only recommendation the Interim Report was able to confidently make was to move the service away from the clinic.
It is absolutely a disgrace that, what is effectively a paediatric clinic, has been shut down for numerous failings in relation to the care it has provided to the children referred to it.
You would know and understand all of this if you'd actually read the report, and not just clicked quickly through some of the landing pages on the website that hosts it.
Yes, the report is designed to improve the level of care for young people. Thus far, the only recommendation it has been able to confidently make is that the Tavistock and GIDS, in their current form, are not fit for purpose, and a move to regional clinics is likely to be a more effective route.
It has also found that there are severe flaws relating to pretty much every aspect of the actual medical care provided to date.
This is not remotely the opposite of my point above. I literally said to Wibble that we should expect the medical routes to have been extensively reviewed by medical experts. One of the key findings of the Cass Interim Report is that these medical routes have not been extensively reviewed by medical experts. In fact, it found that clinical decisions were not necessarily being made by appropriate clinical experts.
Again, you would know this if you'd actually read the report.
The report is quite literally evidence that young people are not being and have not been provided sufficient care.
I remain steadfast in my assertion that until more research is done, children under a certain age (16, 18, etc.) cannot make an informed decision on whether these potentially irreversible treatments are right for them. Even if evidence regarding the long-term effects comes out and supports the use of these treatments, it's still an ethical minefield to suggest that children can reliably consent to them, due to the potentially irreversible nature of them.
Yes, let's get into the rest of the key points (that are not actually part of the report and merely fill the landing page from which you can access it).
So, moving forward, "children should receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child accessing health services".
What does this key point tell us?
It tells us that currently, children accessing the Tavistock Clinic and GIDs services
are not receiving the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as other children accessing other health services.
You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.
So, moving forward, "there needs to be agreement and guidance about the appropriate clinical assessment process", and this needs to be "underpinned by better data and evidence".
What does this key point tell us?
It tells us that currently, there
is not adequate agreement and guidance about the the appropriate clinical assessment process, and the clinical assessments
are not currently underpinned by adequate data and evidence.
You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.
This one just essentially acknowledges that there are a number of challenges to be overcome and that the current service is inadequate. No further notes, which is why I left it out.
So, moving forward, we need to "build an evidence base", and this will will help everyone involved "make more informed decisions about the right path for them."
What does this key point tell us?
It tells us (again) that currently, we
do not have an adequate evidence base for the treatments given, and that as a result, everyone involved
is not able to make an adequately informed decision about the right path.
Again, the current model is fundamentally flawed, hence the need for "a fundamentally different" one.
Additionally, the current model
is not in line with other medical provisions for children, and the current model
does not include support for any other clinical presentations.
Again, this tells us that currently, children accessing these services
are not able to access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child in distress.
I'm fairly sure I acknowledged this one, but as you didn't bother actually responding to any part of my post, you clearly missed it.
Just in case, as above, it's stating that there
is not enough evidence surrounding the use of hormone treatments.
I suppose, yes, it does support the general point that children need to be given the support they require.
However, at this point, I'm not even sure you're reading (or at least comprehending) the things you're copying across from the website, let alone the actual report.
You've repeatedly (and seemingly blindly) conflated your (and I imagine everyone else's) view that children should have access to adequate care with the idea that the care currently provided is remotely adequate.
The fundamental findings of the report, and even the key findings section that exists as a brief summary outside of it (that you've clearly failed to comprehend), are that the care provided is simply not adequate.
To bring this back to the start, my interpretations are not biased. My interpretations are based on the facts and evidence (or lack thereof) that have currently been presented.
Your interpretations, however, are quite clearly biased. This is evident as you repeatedly, blindly attribute your own personal feelings on the matter to draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from a report that quite clearly states almost the exact opposite of what you claim it states.
You have repeatedly failed to answer any of the questions posed or refute any of the points made to you.
Again, I implore you to actually engage with what I have said. I implore you to actually read the report, because I still see no evidence of you having done so. I implore you to actually comprehend the things you are presenting as supposed evidence for your claims.
I am not closed off to this, but the fact is that there is very little (if anything) in the way of evidence to support pretty much anything you have said.