The Next UK Medical Scandal: Why Puberty Blockers Should Not Be Trialed on Children

[Social Media]

 

The idea of conducting a clinical trial on puberty blockers for children, despite the findings of the Cass Review, is beyond belief. The UK government, having already banned these drugs in response to the review, has now announced an £11 million trial to study their effects. But the question remains: can such a trial be ethical? The answer is an unequivocal no.  

 

Having worked as a psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, I have seen firsthand the dangers of rushing to medicalize childhood gender distress. As one of the whistleblowers who exposed concerning practices at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), I witnessed how ideology overtook clinical judgment. Many children—often same-sex attracted or autistic—were fast-tracked onto a medical transition pathway by clinicians who had abandoned sound clinical reasoning in favor of political activism. A clinical trial of puberty blockers risks repeating these mistakes.  

 

Clinical trials are governed by strict ethical and legal frameworks, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the UK’s Medicines for Human Use Regulations. These safeguards exist to ensure that new medical interventions do more good than harm. However, the Cass Review has already made it clear that the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers is exceptionally weak, while the risks are significant. Studies suggest they may have serious negative effects on bone density, cognitive development, and future sexual function.

 

Additionally, more than 95% of children who begin puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones, often leading to irreversible surgical interventions. Knowing this, prescribing puberty blockers even in a clinical trial means knowingly exposing a physically healthy child to systemic harm—something that is not standard practice in ethical medical research.  

 

One of the fundamental principles of medical research is that clinical trials should only be conducted when no alternative method can answer the question at hand. In this case, there are other ways to gather evidence. Instead of experimenting on children, we should focus on long-term follow-up studies of those who have already taken puberty blockers, investigate the growing number of detransitioners, and conduct further animal studies to understand the effects of these drugs on adolescent brain development.

 

Another major ethical issue is informed consent. Under UK law, children under 16 cannot legally provide informed consent for a Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product, meaning parental consent would be required. Yet, in the current highly politicized environment surrounding gender identity, it is difficult to ensure that consent is truly informed and free from coercion. Many parents are subjected to activist-driven claims that denying puberty blockers increases the risk of suicide in gender-distressed youth, making it nearly impossible for them to make an independent, informed decision.  

 

The claim that puberty blockers reduce suicide risk is completely unproven. A recent Finnish study found no significant difference in suicide rates among youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria when adjusted for mental health conditions. In the UK, Professor Louis Appleby, a leading suicide prevention expert, has warned against spreading unsubstantiated claims about suicide risk in gender-distressed children. If informed consent is obtained under conditions of misinformation and fear, it cannot be considered valid.  

 

There are moments in medical history when the impulse to push forward must be halted by the need to reflect. This is one of those moments. With no established safety profile, no strong evidence of efficacy, and well-documented risks, any trial of puberty blockers on children would be a violation of ethical and regulatory principles.  

 

Rather than continuing this dangerous experiment, the medical community, politicians, and regulators must recognize the need to move on. Instead of subjecting confused children to harmful medical interventions, resources should be directed toward understanding the root causes of gender distress, investing in psychosocial treatments, and following up with the 9,000 children who went through GIDS. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.  

 

Dr. David Bell is a retired consultant psychiatrist and former Governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-08

 

 

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

The idea of conducting a clinical trial on puberty blockers for children, despite the findings of the Cass Review, is beyond belief. The UK government, having already banned these drugs in response to the review, has now announced an £11 million trial to study their effects. But the question remains: can such a trial be ethical? The answer is an unequivocal no.  

 

Having worked as a psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, I have seen firsthand the dangers of rushing to medicalize childhood gender distress. As one of the whistleblowers who exposed concerning practices at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), I witnessed how ideology overtook clinical judgment. Many children—often same-sex attracted or autistic—were fast-tracked onto a medical transition pathway by clinicians who had abandoned sound clinical reasoning in favor of political activism. A clinical trial of puberty blockers risks repeating these mistakes.  

 

 

Clinical trials are governed by strict ethical and legal frameworks, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the UK’s Medicines for Human Use Regulations. These safeguards exist to ensure that new medical interventions do more good than harm. However, the Cass Review has already made it clear that the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers is exceptionally weak, while the risks are significant. Studies suggest they may have serious negative effects on bone density, cognitive development, and future sexual function.

 

Additionally, more than 95% of children who begin puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones, often leading to irreversible surgical interventions. Knowing this, prescribing puberty blockers even in a clinical trial means knowingly exposing a physically healthy child to systemic harm—something that is not standard practice in ethical medical research.  

 

One of the fundamental principles of medical research is that clinical trials should only be conducted when no alternative method can answer the question at hand. In this case, there are other ways to gather evidence. Instead of experimenting on children, we should focus on long-term follow-up studies of those who have already taken puberty blockers, investigate the growing number of detransitioners, and conduct further animal studies to understand the effects of these drugs on adolescent brain development.

 

Another major ethical issue is informed consent. Under UK law, children under 16 cannot legally provide informed consent for a Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product, meaning parental consent would be required. Yet, in the current highly politicized environment surrounding gender identity, it is difficult to ensure that consent is truly informed and free from coercion. Many parents are subjected to activist-driven claims that denying puberty blockers increases the risk of suicide in gender-distressed youth, making it nearly impossible for them to make an independent, informed decision.  

 

The claim that puberty blockers reduce suicide risk is completely unproven. A recent Finnish study found no significant difference in suicide rates among youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria when adjusted for mental health conditions. In the UK, Professor Louis Appleby, a leading suicide prevention expert, has warned against spreading unsubstantiated claims about suicide risk in gender-distressed children. If informed consent is obtained under conditions of misinformation and fear, it cannot be considered valid.  

 

There are moments in medical history when the impulse to push forward must be halted by the need to reflect. This is one of those moments. With no established safety profile, no strong evidence of efficacy, and well-documented risks, any trial of puberty blockers on children would be a violation of ethical and regulatory principles.  

 

Rather than continuing this dangerous experiment, the medical community, politicians, and regulators must recognize the need to move on. Instead of subjecting confused children to harmful medical interventions, resources should be directed toward understanding the root causes of gender distress, investing in psychosocial treatments, and following up with the 9,000 children who went through GIDS. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.  

 

Dr. David Bell is a retired consultant psychiatrist and former Governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-08

 

 

There have been a lot of trials in Hitler's concentration camps before.

Now in UK? Unbelievable 😱

[loong]

I am sorry about my ignorance regarding this subject, but I just don't understand how puberty blocker could possibly be useful for children with gender dysphoria.

If a male child is distressed because he is male, at puberty age, he will still be a male whether or not he takes puberty blockers! It makes no sense to me.

I hope that in years to come, children who have these decisions forced upon them by their parents will be suing their parents in court. It may eventually lead to the end of such child abuse!