A peer-reviewed research paper by Dr George Halasz and Andrew Amos published in Australasian Psychiatry has been brought to ADF’s attention. The authors examine the treatment of gender dysphoria described in Bell v Tavistock (UK 2020) and find “concerning lapses of clinical governance influenced by activists and linked to patient harm“. The authors conclude, “In our opinion, the Bell case documents harms directly arising from the subordination of clinical governance to social and political goals… We believe that advocates for those experiencing gender dysphoria want them to receive the best care. However, the Tavistock case shows this drive has risked patients’ health and family wellbeing on clinical frameworks unbacked by evidence. As the Cass Review makes clear, the certainty associated with gender affirming care is not backed by any strong evidence about the natural history of gender dysphoria or the efficacy/sequelae of the treatment alternatives, particularly over the long term.
Read the full article here.