Transgender activists and advocates are dashing around in confusion. Their dismay springs from a recent report that changed Great Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) policies on puberty-blocking drugs. Often, pro-transsexual “doctors” use such concoctions as a first step in attempts to “help” young people “transition” from being male to female or vice versa.
Socialized Medicine
The NHS is the administrative arm of Great Britain’s socialized medicine machine. It took shape under the Labour government of Clement Atlee in 1946 and went into effect in 1948. Since then, it has promised free doctors and medicines for all but has seldom lived up to that promise.
All too often, high costs led to the rationing of healthcare. The system required legislative “reform” in 1977, 2006 and 2012. The sometimes lethal connection between government policy and medicine is apparent in the tragic infant euthanasia cases of Alfie Evans, Charlie Gard and Indi Gregory.
Generally, the NHS allies itself with the political left. For instance, its record on abortion is clear. It claims that “Abortion care is an essential service. More than 200,000 abortions were performed in 2021, and the Office of National Statistics reports that more than 1 in 4 conceptions resulted in abortion that year, a record high rate for England and Wales.”
Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law
Thus, most leftists were dismayed and surprised by the release of The Cass Review. The 388-page report, complete with twelve appendices, took four years to prepare. It holds up a mirror to the transsexual movement in Great Britain. The reflection is not pretty.
The Doctor Behind the Report
The report’s name is that of its primary author, Dr. Hilary Cass. Dr. Cass’s professional accomplishments are impressive. Even the oh-so-liberal New York Times acknowledges that she spent over thirty years as “one of England’s top pediatricians.” She was the president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health from 2012-2015 and led the British Academy of Childhood Disability from 2017 to 2020. In 2015, Queen Elizabeth decorated her as a member of the Order of the British Empire.
However, Dr. Cass is not a politician. Despite the evident problems that the report creates for the “transsexual community” and its advocates, none of the British coverage points to a political motive. Even Great Britain’s “LGBT Archive” speaks of her respectfully.
Despite the report’s length, its fundamental objection is simple. The science behind delaying or preventing the development of male or female characteristics is unsound and untested. The use of hormone blockers as a beginning step to “gender transition” is, at best, uncertain. The study showed that treatments are often prescribed without due care and carry a wide variety of unknown risks.
Shifting Policies
In response, the NHS shifted its policy. Currently, hormone blockers can only be used in tightly regulated research settings. The British journal The Guardian quoted an NHS spokesperson.
“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty-suppressing hormones to make the treatment routinely available at this time.”
The Guardian also quoted Maria Caulfield, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy. “[C]are must be based on evidence, expert clinical opinion and in the best interests of the child. The NHS must ensure its Gender Identity Services protect, support and act in the best interests of children, and we will continue to work with NHS England to protect children in this area.”
Leftist Resistance
Many in Great Britain’s leftist health bureaucracy did not welcome Dr. Cass’s scrutiny. Buried toward the end of the report is a letter by Dr. Cass to John Stewart, National Director of Specialized Commissioning for NHS England and NHS Improvement. While her phrasing is professional, one sentence offers a glimpse at the many roadblocks she faced.
Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times
“It is therefore hugely disappointing that the NHS gender services have decided not to participate with this research. I am frustrated on behalf of the young people and their families that the opportunity to reduce some of the uncertainties around care options has not been taken.”
Despite the political interference, Dr. Cass attempted to delineate the medical and political dimensions of the issue at the report’s outset.
“This Review is not about defining what it means to be trans, nor is it about undermining the validity of trans identities, challenging the right of people to express themselves, or rolling back on people’s rights to healthcare. It is about what the healthcare approach should be, and how best to help the growing number of children and young people who are looking for support from the NHS in relation to their gender identity.”
American Backlash
Interestingly, the American press reaction is limited. The only American newspaper that covers it in any detail is The New York Times.
Unfortunately, the American reaction to the study was far less respectful of children’s well-being. The Times quoted Dr. Ben Hoffman, the president of the far-left American Academy of Pediatrics. He indulged in the common tactic of implying an impending disaster despite the lack of evidence. “Politicians have inserted themselves into the exam room, which is dangerous for both physicians and for families.”
The Associated Press hastened to tie the British decision to American conservatives, a convenient political connection that exists as fiction.
“The decision—which is not an outright ban on puberty blockers—was criticized by some transgender campaigners and is being closely watched in the United States. Major U.S. medical associations endorse transgender medical care for minors, but several Republican-led states have banned puberty blockers and other treatment for transgender youth—and, in some cases, adults.”
A Step in the Right Direction—But Only a Step
This article should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Dr. Cass or the NHS—far from it. Nothing in the report implies any issues with the transgender movement as a whole, only about its effect on children. That position is far superior to that of the American Academy of Pediatricians, which still advocates for the most destructive treatments regardless of age. However, even after making the reforms urged by The Cass Review, the British position still extends the fallacy of “gender-affirming care” to anyone over eighteen. Therefore, it still denies the Church’s position, most succinctly stated in Genesis 1:27, “male and female He created them.”
10 Razones Por las Cuales el “Matrimonio” Homosexual es Dañino y tiene que Ser Desaprobado
At the same time, removing troubled children from leftist political machinations is a substantial improvement over the United States’ current situation. If leftists were as concerned about America’s children as they pretend to be, they would welcome and emulate the new British sense of caution. The fact that they do not show this concern says far more about the radicals than they want the rest of the nation to know.
Photo Credit: © JHVEPhoto – stock.adobe.com