BMA debates response to child gender care review

British Medical Association (BMA) leaders have met to discuss the approach being taken to children and young people struggling with their gender identity.

The union’s senior doctors debated the Cass review on Wednesday at a meeting of its council – the BMA's top decision-making body.

Ahead of the meeting, a council member questioned the way the review was carried out and called the ban on puberty blockers "terrible".

The New Statesman has reported a motion proposing the BMA “publicly disavow” the review was to be debated that day.

The BMA had described the magazine's claim as misleading but refused to release details of the motion voted on.

However the New Statesman said it stood by their journalist’s story and the integrity of her journalism.

The BMA did say that the Cass review was debated alongside the “woefully inadequate” provision of services for children and young people with gender dysphoria.

The review, commissioned by NHS England and published in April, was led by leading paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass.

It warned children had been let down by a lack of research and “remarkably weak” evidence on medical interventions in gender care.

'Terrible decision'

The findings prompted the government to curb the use of puberty blockers for gender identity reasons, introducing an emergency ban on them being prescribed by private and European prescribers - something now being challenged in the High Court.

The ban was introduced by the last Conservative government, but new Health Secretary Wes Streeting has decided to continue with it.

The stance has been criticised by one of the BMA’s council members, Dr Emma Runswick.

Earlier this week, she said on X that it was a “terrible political decision which will cause incredible harm to trans people”.

Dr Runswick said the ban should be reversed and that the Cass review had been criticised for “bias and poor methodology”.

In a statement, the BMA said: “We will continue with further work in this area to contribute positively to the provision of care and services to this often neglected population and will be setting out the BMA’s stance in due course.”

Update 20.7.24: This story has been updated to reflect a New Statesman comment.