性别医学与《卡斯评论》:医学与法律为何不能共存。

IF 4.3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
C Ronny Cheung, Evgenia Abbruzzese, Elaine Lockhart, Ian K Maconochie, Camilla C Kingdon
{"title":"性别医学与《卡斯评论》:医学与法律为何不能共存。","authors":"C Ronny Cheung, Evgenia Abbruzzese, Elaine Lockhart, Ian K Maconochie, Camilla C Kingdon","doi":"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara <i>et al</i>-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":8150,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows.\",\"authors\":\"C Ronny Cheung, Evgenia Abbruzzese, Elaine Lockhart, Ian K Maconochie, Camilla C Kingdon\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara <i>et al</i>-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Disease in Childhood\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Disease in Childhood\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2024 年 4 月,由希拉里-卡斯博士(Dr Hilary Cass)主持的独立审查《卡斯审查》(Cass Review)发布了最终报告,提出了改善英国儿童和青少年性别认同服务的建议。审查的核心目的是改善对儿童和青少年的护理。受英国国民健康服务局委托,该审查发现医学内分泌干预的证据基础薄弱,建议在结构化研究框架内提供这些治疗。该审查报告得到了临床界的广泛支持。然而,今年 7 月,英国医学会理事会在未征求其成员意见的情况下,出人意料地通过了一项动议,要求对《回顾》进行公开批评,理由是对方法论缺陷的担忧--在受到成员们的公开批评后,该理事会的立场有所缓和,并得出结论称,他们将从中立的立场出发进行审查。我们批判性地研究了这些资料来源,并分析了应用这些资料的更广泛的法律背景。我们的结论是,这些资料错误地描述了卡斯审查的作用和过程(特别是错误地将审查与临床实践指南的制定相提并论),而针对卡斯审查的许多方法论批评,包括其对约克大学进行的证据评估和系统性审查的使用,都是毫无根据的。这些误解是建立在错误的、未经同行评议的分析基础上的,其目的是为了法律(而非临床),这些误解危及了对性别障碍青少年护理的重要改革的实施。英国临床界应超越这些批评,关注卡斯审查报告的建议,为有性别认同问题的儿童和青少年建立一个更安全、更全面、以证据为基础的服务模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows.

In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara et al-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
291
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Disease in Childhood is an international peer review journal that aims to keep paediatricians and others up to date with advances in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood diseases as well as advocacy issues such as child protection. It focuses on all aspects of child health and disease from the perinatal period (in the Fetal and Neonatal edition) through to adolescence. ADC includes original research reports, commentaries, reviews of clinical and policy issues, and evidence reports. Areas covered include: community child health, public health, epidemiology, acute paediatrics, advocacy, and ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信