Britain Banned Puberty Blockers - But Did They Go Far Enough?
The NHS statement leaves much to be desired, with carve outs for clinical trials and more experimentation ahead.
“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time.”
As of March 12th, NHS England announced that gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, informally known as puberty blockers, will no longer be prescribed to anyone under the age of 18 outside of regulated clinical trials. The decision blocks the state-funded NHS from using puberty blockers to treat catch-all identity diagnosis “gender dysphoria”, and concludes the NHS’ independent review of gender treatments for minors first commissioned in 2020.
While the policy statement released today may be a good start, it 1. Doesn’t actually do much and 2. Doesn’t go far enough.
As of now, only about 100 children are being treated with puberty blockers for gender dysphoria through the NHS on a clinical trial basis. This is due to an interim decision made based on an earlier report. The agency has stipulated that those currently receiving treatment will be able to continue care at Leeds and University College London Hospital.
The wording of the NHS’s statement is cause for concern. “At this time” implies that puberty blockers may be reevaluated and deemed efficacious at a later date. Similarly, “there is not enough evidence” implies that more evidence could change this decision. The NHS itself intends to continue research, with plans to perform a study on the use of puberty blockers by December 2024. Additional patients may be prescribed the drugs through other forthcoming clinical trials.
To be effective, a ban on puberty blockers must be total and all-encompassing. No exception for clinical trials is to be allowed if we want to see them discontinued in gender distressed children entirely. NHS England should use the 22 U.S. states enforcing total or near total bans on “gender affirming care” for minors as inspiration when formulating policy. Though conversely, the U.S. could stand to learn a thing or two from the U.K. in light of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) recent statement in full support of the same harmful “gender affirming” practices.
In short, when battling this harmful ideology, cohesion and consistency are needed. A complete and total ban on puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria is the only way to shield children too young to understand their consequences from their harmful effects. No child should have the ability to sign away their future fertility, full bone density, or critical brain development—and no doctor or parent should be able to do it for them.
As the trans ideologues are fond of saying, we must be “persistent, consistent, and insistent” in our steadfast denial of so-called “gender affirming care” for minors.
Thank you for reading.
"We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time." Another way this statement is weakened is the use of the weasel word 'routinely'. Does it mean puberty blockers are available in some situations? It can be interpreted in different ways.
A better statement might be "We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty blockers] to make the treatment available."