In a shocking story involving Crumlin Children’s Hospital that should have been front page headlines was largely ignored by the Irish media. The NHS Britain’s health service has ordered that the Tavistock transgender clinic for children’s gender reassignment where Crumlin refers Irish children be shut down following a review that found it is “not safe’. On top of that a London High Court decision found against the ‘Tavistock NHS Trust’s’ unproven practices.
Crumlin Sent Children to Quack Clinic
Tavistock had been assessing Irish child and adolescent patients for at least a decade, with a Tavistock team visiting Crumlin Children’s Hospital in Dublin on a monthly basis for the purpose of assigning Irish children and adolescents as suitable for their gender re-assignment procedures. This continued until the recent Tavistock ‘shut down’ order
Questions For Crumlin
Was there no vetting process by the Crumlin and the Irish medical authorities who appeared to have invited this dubious outfit to assess and assign children from Crumlin for their permanent procedures to reassign the gender of numerous Irish children in their London clinic? Numerous court cases and warnings about the clinics dubious practices were voiced by many eminent physicians over the years concerning Tavistock. Crumlin sent children to a clinic which was effectively engaged in quackery. Where were the medical ethics involved?
Genital Mutilation
Why did Crumlin ignore the growing concern and disquiet and continue to send Irish children to the Tavistock clinic who carried out what has been described as genital mutilation procedures being carried out on children. Are children in their formative years that express gender issues compus mentus mature enough to request or agree to permanent life changing procedures that amount to genital mutilation and hormonal interference to change their gender?
A Public Inquiry
In 2020, the Tavistock clinic was rated as “inadequate” – with the UK’s health watchdog, the Care Quality Commission, giving it the lowest possible rating. Was Crumlin aware of this and if so why did they ignore it? A public enquiry is needed to examine Crumlin’s attitude to gender reassignment on children, their relationship with the Tavistock clinic and their failure to heed the warnings concerning Tavistock.
A Damning Inditement
The Tavistock clinic had become the centre of considerable disquiet and controversy following claims that it was “unquestioning” where children sought to change their gender. It was found to be “not a safe or viable long-term option” by an independent review earlier this year. This review, which was led by Dr Hilary Cass, a consultant paediatrician, warned that medical staff in the Tavistock clinic felt “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach” to gender identity, rather than adopting a process of clinical assessment with young people who might have expressed some form of gender dysphoria. Inspectors said that “many of the young people waiting for or receiving a service were very vulnerable and at risk of self-harm. Despite this staff often did not assess the risks presented by young people and their families.” Were Crumlin and the HSE aware of this and if so why did they ignore it?
Tavistock in Court
In a high-profile case, a former patient, Keira Bell, brought Tavistock to the High Court saying they should have challenged her when she was a child over her desire to undergo a transition from female to male. She said she was prescribed puberty-blocking drugs at the age of 15 to stop the process of developing female sexual characteristics. After a period, her treatment led to her taking cross-sex hormones to promote the development of male characteristics, and she then underwent breast removal surgery at the age of 20. Tavistock defended its actions, saying that children were capable of decision making, but they were criticised by another claimant in the case, the mother of an unnamed teenage autistic girl waiting for treatment. “A child experiencing gender distress needs time and support – not to be set on a medical pathway they may later regret,” said the claimant, identified in news reports only as Mrs. A. Was Crumlin Children’s Hospital and the HSE aware of court cases the Tavistock was engaged in concerning their questionable ethics and procedures?
Court Condemns Experimental Treatment
A three-judge Divisional Court of the High Court in London delivered a ruling in December 1st 2021 that described puberty blockers as an “experimental treatment” and said that it was not possible for patients under age 16 to give the required legal consent. The court found against the ‘Tavistock NHS Trust’, that argued that the courts deciding whether a child or young person should get the gender reassignment treatment would be an intrusion on their autonomy.
HSE to Continue Dubious Treatment
The HSE has decided to continue with their dubious puberty blocking treatment for young children at Crumlin Children’s Hospital despite the London High Court ruling last December. They claim that the “risk of withdrawing treatment on foot of ruling in another jurisdiction represents far higher risk to patients than continuing treatment and we support clinicians in same”, according to an email circulated a week after the judgment. Where is either the medical or psychological evidence to support this questionable claim?
Puberty Blockers For 10 yr olds
Tavistock had come under fire for making decisions to give children as young as 10 puberty blockers. The NHS have said they will now follow Dr Cass’s recommendation that they carry out “rapid” research on the effect of puberty blockers on young people, after she noted that there is currently “insufficient evidence” on their impact. Dr Cass’s report said there was a lack of understanding in Tavistock about why the type of patients the clinic was seeing was changing, with more female to male patients and more autistic children. She also highlighted what she saw as inconclusive evidence to back some of the clinical decisions made in the sex-change centre.
Questioning a Dubious Practice
Experts now question the commonly used threat by medical professionals; “Would you rather have a dead son or a living daughter?” or vice versa. Many doctors are so scared of the label “transphobe” that they automatically present sceptical parents with that doomsday scenario: Critics of this blunt proposition such as endocrinologist Dr. Paul Hruz, of the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis told The New York Post: “In these circumstances, I would advise parents to ask, ‘On what evidence are you making this claim?’” His focus on the widely held belief that sex-reassignment treatment prevents emotionally damaged kids from ending their lives. Questioning this theory he says that its supporting studies are variously limited or skewed. He adds that fundamental problems with the research include large numbers of self-selected subjects, a lack of control groups and inadequate reviews by peers.
Suicidal Results of Gender Reassignment
A 2011 study spanning three decades by the respected Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that people who underwent sex reassignment were 19 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population.
In the US, a yearlong survey by the National Centre for Transgender Equality concluded that those who had transitioned were more likely to have attempted suicide than trans people who had not had medical or surgical treatments.
The HSE Have Questions to Answer
Where does that and a growing mountain of evidence of the deadly negative consequences of gender reassignment leave the HSE’s claim that the “risk of withdrawing treatment on foot of ruling in another jurisdiction represents far higher risk to patients than continuing treatment and we support clinicians in same”. Are the HSE so scared of the label “transphobe” that they continue to promote the most dubious of practices on vulnerable children? What is their agenda? We need urgent answers as more children’s future is being decided on and destroyed by those with a ‘woke’ agenda.
We at the Irish People will visit this subject again as the controversy grows.
