MPs decide not to give puberty busting drugs
Discussion
Wut?
No they didn’t.
It was given the go ahead. Absolutely shocking.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/06/24/the-nhs-p...
No they didn’t.
It was given the go ahead. Absolutely shocking.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/06/24/the-nhs-p...
BrettMRC said:
Nice healthy debate already, supported by unbiased sources.
They are running a trial (as opposed to the scandal at Tavistock).Which will determine whether applying puberty blocking drugs is medically sound.
By applying said drugs to 200 children.
I couldn’t give a fig for your ‘unbiased’ ‘healthy’ stance.
Ridgemont said:
The short form is that the NHS is going to experiment on 200 kids.
When it's finding out about something you approve of (eg. cancer, Alzheimers), it's research; when it's something you don't, it's an experimentThe scandal with the Tavi is the treatment was being given before the scientific basis for the condition and its treatment was established.
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and whilst I agree there has been a disproportionate amount of social media influence and public attention surrounding it over the last few years, there are real people for whom it is genuine and causes significant distress.
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist—to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist—to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
BrettMRC said:
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
This sounds like the sort of vague, wishy washy s
te a politician would say.I agree that Gender dysphoria is real and should be taken seriously, but it's a mental health condition and should be treated as such.
BrettMRC said:
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and whilst I agree there has been a disproportionate amount of social media influence and public attention surrounding it over the last few years, there are real people for whom it is genuine and causes significant distress.
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
Quite right - good post.If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
CMTMB said:
BrettMRC said:
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
This sounds like the sort of vague, wishy washy ste a politician would say.I agree that Gender dysphoria is real and should be taken seriously, but it's a mental health condition and should be treated as such.
Earthdweller said:
I'm sorry but no 11 year old is mentally aware and capable enough of making irreversible life changing decisions
I'm not arguing for and against the trial here but that's a simplification of the eligibility process.Do you seriously think any 11 year old can just sign up for this and be accepted?
8.4L 154 said:
CMTMB said:
BrettMRC said:
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
This sounds like the sort of vague, wishy washy ste a politician would say.I agree that Gender dysphoria is real and should be taken seriously, but it's a mental health condition and should be treated as such.
8.4L 154 said:
So treatment via conversion therapy then?
The extension of the term "conversion therapy" to describe the counselling of troubled teens is highly misleading. In adolescents the majority reporting gender dysmorphia do not have this five years later. In the case of teenaged girls 70% no longer report this after five years according to one study.They need counselling and support not life altering surgery and chemical intervention.
BrettMRC said:
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and whilst I agree there has been a disproportionate amount of social media influence and public attention surrounding it over the last few years, there are real people for whom it is genuine and causes significant distress.
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
As long as you personally underwrite the tens of millions of pounds compensation that will inevitably resultIf medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
Medication and surgery are at the end of a process as a rule, not the beginning of it.
I think some people are conflating a clinical trial with routine treatment.
Nobody is suggesting an 11-year-old walks into a clinic and walks out with puberty blockers. The whole point of a trial is that there are strict inclusion criteria, ethics approval, informed consent, multidisciplinary assessment and independent oversight precisely because we're dealing with an uncertain area of medicine.
I think some people are conflating a clinical trial with routine treatment.
Nobody is suggesting an 11-year-old walks into a clinic and walks out with puberty blockers. The whole point of a trial is that there are strict inclusion criteria, ethics approval, informed consent, multidisciplinary assessment and independent oversight precisely because we're dealing with an uncertain area of medicine.
Edited by BrettMRC on Friday 26th June 10:16
milesgiles said:
BrettMRC said:
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and whilst I agree there has been a disproportionate amount of social media influence and public attention surrounding it over the last few years, there are real people for whom it is genuine and causes significant distress.
If medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
As long as you personally underwrite the tens of millions of pounds compensation that will inevitably resultIf medical treatment is going to have any benefit for those patients, it will necessarily involve adolescents, which means this research can't simply be done in adults. That obviously requires sensitivity, appropriate safeguards and robust ethical oversight.
The criticism after Tavistock wasn't that researchers knew puberty blockers didn't work. It was that they were being used despite there not being robust evidence either way. If that's the problem, then surely the solution is to collect better evidence under proper clinical trial conditions rather than continue relying on opinion.
Every treatment we now regard as standard started life in a clinical trial. Nobody likes the uncertainty involved, but that's precisely why trials exist to determine whether a treatment is beneficial, harmful, or makes no difference.
If the trial ultimately shows puberty blockers don't improve outcomes, then that's valuable knowledge and they should be abandoned. If it shows a clear benefit for carefully selected patients, that's equally important. Either way, we'll have better evidence than we do today.
Supporting a clinical trial isn't the same as supporting widespread use. In fact, it's almost the opposite. It's saying, "Let's stop arguing from ideology and find out what the evidence actually shows."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff