Thread on the #keirabell judgement and sorry state of evidence-lead health policy in New Zealand.

We have further confirmation that there is no good evidence of benefit from puberty blockers, and significant risks.

1/11

The judges heard evidence for and against, and testimony from former patients. They ruled that puberty blocking is "experimental", with "very limited evidence as to its efficacy"

An unsurprising finding if you're familiar with the literature.

2/11
This is a continuation of the findings from the national health body reviews from Sweden and Finland. Both find that evidence is insufficient.

3/11

https://t.co/SdNHXYPiCT
A review by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University highlighted the "profound scientific ignorance" on the the use of puberty blockers

4/11

https://t.co/jTnu4jfuUt
A 2018 review by an Australian expert group finds that all studies on the psych effects of puberty blockers have a medium or high risk of bias.

5/11

https://t.co/7L5dLrr5Zo
Ok, what about New Zealand?
Dr Jeannie Oliphant is the lead author of NZ guidelines. She described puberty blockers as "the gold standard for young people." and claims that "we are using puberty blockers very freely up until about till about 20".

6/11

https://t.co/DAeIpJqqCB
The NZ guidelines cite a *single* highly biased study (de Vries et al., 2014) and then claim that puberty blocking is supported by "good evidence"

7/11

https://t.co/pch96L8gVC
The lead author of the original study (de Vries) now believes puberty suppression is not always appropriate.

She believes psychosocial support may be more appropriate for children who have recent dysphoria

8/11

https://t.co/cgHf23gCCS
New Zealand children have the right to not be subject to medical experimentation. Health authorities must uphold the right to informed consent and provide psychosocial support.

9/11
If you know doctors and parents who are considering blocking a child's normal puberty, please forward them the judgement

10/11

https://t.co/nCsHJRhZSh
Thread summarised here ->

11/Fin

https://t.co/N3SdEm0sCK

More from Law

Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.


The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.

It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.

There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.

A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.

You May Also Like