Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

1,000 UK doctors condemn medical association’s push to lift puberty blocker ban for minors

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

1,000 senior doctors signed an open letter to the British Medical Association after it lobbied for the NHS to lift a ban on puberty blockers for children following the Cass Review, which found the drugs were harmful.

On August 1, the British Medical Association (BMA) – the United Kingdom’s doctors’ union – called on the government to lift the ban on puberty blockers for minors. Weirdly, the BMA also stated that in their view the implementation of NHS England’s Cass Review should be “paused” despite the fact that, as the BBC noted, the review “took four years to carry out and was widely welcomed by the medical establishment in the U.K.” The BMA called the Cass Review’s recommendations – based on “the largest and most comprehensive review” on the subject seen, looking at 237 papers from 18 countries – “unsubstantiated.”  

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care responded to the BMA, firmly rejecting both the request and the claim, stating, “The Cass Review is a robust report backed by clinicians and firmly grounded in evidence. NHS England will be implementing Dr. Cass’s recommendations so that children and young people get the safe, holistic support they need. We do not support a delay to vital improvements from the NHS to gender services.” Even the leftist Guardian ran an editorial criticizing the BMA’s position, stating, “The BMA’s stance on puberty blockers defies the key principle of medicine: first, do no harm.” 

READ: FDA official recommends approval of puberty blockers despite suicide risk for gender-confused youth 

As it turns out, there are plenty of physicians who are very unhappy with the BMA’s move – and they are now making their voices heard. This week, 1,000 senior doctors from across the U.K. published an open letter addressed to Professor Philip Banfield, chairman of the BMA.  

“We write as doctors to say, ‘not in my name,’” the letter reads. “We are extremely disappointed that the BMA council had passed a motion to conduct a ‘critique’ of the Cass Review and to lobby to oppose its recommendations. The passing of the motion was opaque and secretive. It does not reflect the views of the wider membership, whose opinion you did not seek. We understand that no information will be released on the voting figures and how council members voted. That is a failure of accountability to members and is simply not acceptable.” 

The open letter further emphasizes that the Cass Review “is the most comprehensive review into healthcare for children with gender related distress ever conducted” and urged the BMA to “abandon its pointless exercise” of attacking and opposing the recommendations. “By lobbying against the best evidence we have, the BMA is going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and against ethical practice.” 

Among the signatories to the letter are 23 former or current clinical leaders at royal colleges, as well as the heads and former heads of some royal colleges.  

The British Medical Association is the only main medical organization to oppose the Cass Review; all others have backed it. For example, Professor Sir Stephen Powis, NHS national medical director, stated, “These plans set out in detail how we will establish a fundamentally different and safer model of care for children and young people. The work Dr. Cass has undertaken has been invaluable in helping us shape the new service offer, and we have already begun our transformation of these services by opening two new regional centres this year.” Banfield responded on behalf of the BMA council to say that the points made in the letter would be considered during their ongoing evaluation. 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Addictions

BC NDP, Conservatives’ drug policies converge in close election

Published on

From Break The Needle 

By Alexandra Keeler

The BC NDP and Conservatives have both pledged to introduce involuntary care for addicts as they contend for voter support on unpopular issue

Gregory Sword has been advocating for British Columbia to permit involuntary care of individuals struggling with addiction ever since losing his 14-year-old daughter to an overdose two years ago.

Now, he looks likely to get his wish — regardless of which party wins the provincial election on Oct. 19.

On Sept. 15, NDP Premier David Eby announced plans to expand involuntary care for “people with addiction challenges, brain injuries, and mental-health issues.” The announcement follows a similar pledge by BC Conservative Leader John Rustad, who on Sept. 11 promised to introduce involuntary care for adults and minors.

The move suggests the BC NDP may be recalibrating its drug policies in response to polling data and competitive pressure from the BC Conservative Party, which has seen its electoral prospects bolstered by the collapse of the centre-right BC United Party.

The BC Conservatives and BC NDP are tied in the polls, at 44 and 43 per cent respectively, according to an Aug. 30 Angus Reid survey. More than two-thirds of respondents said they thought the province was on the “wrong track” in dealing with the opioid crisis. A Sept. 5 Angus Reid poll had similar findings, with 74 per cent of respondents rating the NDP’s handling of the drug crisis as “poor” or “very poor.”

‘A new phase’

B.C. saw a six per cent drop in opioid-related deaths in early 2024 compared to 2023. But the province continues to account for 32 per cent of all drug-related deaths in Canada, despite having just 13 per cent of its population.

In Sunday’s announcement, Eby referred to the introduction of involuntary care as “the beginning of a new phase of our response to the addiction crisis … We are taking action to get them the care they need to keep them safe, and in doing so, keep our communities safe, too.”

Rustad criticized the announcement, citing policy inconsistency. “For years, the NDP ignored the calls for involuntary care, leaving families helpless and those suffering on the streets,” he said in a media release.

“Now, after our party clearly outlined a plan to bring compassion and accountability to addiction treatment, Eby is suddenly pretending to be on board.”

However, Eby first proposed introducing involuntary care in August 2022 during his leadership race. The NDP’s move also partially follows a recommendation of Dr. Daniel Vigo, B.C.’s first chief scientific adviser for psychiatry, who was appointed to that role in June 2024.

Sword, who tried to get his daughter help, believes B.C.’s youth treatment framework — which currently requires minors to consent to addictions treatment — ultimately contributed to his daughter’s death.

“This is how screwed up B.C. is: If I harm my child, beat my child, get my child drugs — she can be taken away from me and get the help that she needs,” he told Canadian Affairs in August. “But if she’s doing it to herself, it’s okay.”

Bold harm-reduction measures

The “new phase” in the NDP’s response to the drug crisis reflects a shift from a prior focus on bold harm-reduction measures — some of which have been followed by reversals.

Since taking office in 2017, the NDP has doubled the number of supervised consumption sites in B.C., from three to six (five are currently operational). And it has expanded the number of overdose prevention sites — which generally offer fewer services than supervised consumption sites — from 20 to 44.

In 2020, the NDP government introduced prescribed alternative supply programs — previously known as “safer supply” — which enable users to receive prescribed opioids as an alternative to illicit street drugs.

In January 2023, the province began a three-year, trial decriminalization project that permitted British Columbians to possess small amounts of otherwise illicit drugs such as heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine. B.C. was the first — and so far only — province to decriminalize hard drugs.

But in April, the province partially reversed course, obtaining Ottawa’s approval to recriminalize the use of hard drugs in public spaces.

In October 2023, Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry ordered that vending machines be installed outside hospital emergency departments on Vancouver Island to dispense free drug consumption supplies. On Sept. 12, Eby ordered a review of this initiative, leading to a suspension of the machines until the review is complete.

The BC NDP party did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story by press time.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

Conservative alternatives

The BC Conservatives have positioned themselves as champions of “common sense” solutions to the drug crisis. In response to requests for comment for this story, the BC Conservatives referred Canadian Affairs to its Sept. 15 media release.

Rustad has said that safe supply programs and decriminalization have been policy failures. The party’s platform pledges to “end heroin hand-outs” and to “reverse decriminalization of hard drugs.” Rustad has also criticized harm-reduction vending machines, accusing Eby of “encouraging the proliferation of hard drug use across the province.”

“I know that they [BC Conservatives] are very much on board for more recovery models versus drug decriminalization,” said William Yoachim, a Nanaimo city council member and member of the Snuneymuxw First Nation. Yoachim says he is cautiously optimistic there could be a significant policy change under a new government.

“My only concern with what a Conservative government’s approach would be is their leader. I’m not sure how committed he would be towards the Indigenous recovery.”

The BC Conservatives have said they would develop a new public health strategy focused on addressing “the root causes of drug addiction that prioritizes treatment and not free drugs.”

They have also proposed stricter penalties for drug smuggling and enhanced border security.

Before suspending its electoral campaign, the BC United Party had pledged to introduce free, accessible mental health and addiction services and longer treatment stays. It had also advocated for people with lived experience of addiction, homelessness and mental illness to be involved in designing recovery-oriented housing.

It remains unclear whether the BC Conservatives — which now includes some former BC United candidates — will adopt any of these policies.

Sarah Blyth, a frontline harm-reduction worker with the Vancouver Overdose Prevention Society, says she is frustrated by how polarizing the issue of drug policy has become.

“People are becoming really dogmatic on either side of it,” she said. “We should be looking at each other to see what unique, creative approaches we’re taking … and figure out what’s working where, and do our best.”

Blyth says she plans to keep her head down through this election. “Let them fight it out.”

“Let this be over, and then let’s get back to work.”


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Subscribe to Break The Needle. Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Addictions

WATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario

Published on

New documentary produced by the Canadian Centre For Responsible Drug Policy features a 25-year-old student who purchased thousands of diverted “safer supply” opioids.

The Centre For Responsible Drug Policy, parent organization of Break The Needle, has launched its first mini-documentary: “Government Heroin.” The film follows the story of Callum Bagnall, a 25-year-old student from London, Ontario, who purchased thousands of opioid pills diverted from government-funded “safer supply” programs. Callum recounts how rampant fraud has turned these programs into a an abject disaster, leading to new addictions and immense profits for organized crime.

The film also features Joanne, his anxious mother, as well as Dr. Janel Gracey, an addiction physician whose clinical experiences make it obvious that safer supply is causing a wave of relapses and getting teenagers hooked on “government heroin.”

Subscribe to Break The Needle. Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X