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

1/n How come we still have academics sustaining narratives of #obesity rather than of how real people find value & meaning in everyday lives? Revisit @whatsthepont on @tobyjlowe / @snowded & accept criticising "neoliberal" does not make things

New out 🤯 A review which says lots about the academic context in which it was written - with its embedded behaviorist fixations on just implementing *better* - with complete disregard for the unintended consequences of treating "agency" as a dirty word

In all #becausehuman fields, we see justifiable professional kick-back at reductionist agendas driven by a focus on #obesity & nonsensical CMO guidance of 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day for healthy growth and development


What's fundamentally missing is not just a respect for complexity. It's respect for Homo-Narrans - for the ordinary, everyday story-telling folk all around us whose aspirations & dispositions provide the context in which we find meaning, purpose & value

We don't need spurious arguments against initiatives... but let's consider ethics & unintended consequences - on which, see @snowded (especially around epistemic justice) #becausehuman
https://t.co/gu97xDEamB
https://t.co/E1GzCdCfLA
https://t.co/bKowDAgARQ
https://t.co/evzYMBPwvZ
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like