Why is Webberley not in Prison?
An attempt to answer that baffling question.
It is a source of bafflement to many of the parents I work with that Helen Webberley of GenderGP has not been convicted of any offence, nor struck off the register of doctors.
GenderGP is a private medical practice, of somewhat peripatetic incorporation (Spain, Hong Kong, Belize, who knows where now), that is primarily known as a source of wrong-sex hormones for minors.
Without doubt an egregiously unethical and harmful outfit, it has survived various attempts to limit its activities. Mostly to little or no avail.
Now, I am not a lawyer, so what follows is just a lay-person’s interpretation of what seems to be going wrong.
Helen Webberley of GenderGP has been taken to the General Medical Council Medical Practice Tribunal Service where she was found to have breached the rule on prescribing hormones to one child. She was given a one month suspension which was later overturned on appeal.
What this tells us is that there have been attempts to hold Webberley to account, but they have failed. To understand why they failed, one has to read the court transcripts. During the course of her tribunal hearing there was no attempt made by the GMC to question the acceptability of what she was doing (something we all agree should be illegal), thus she was only reprimanded for how she did it. Therein lies our challenge.
In order for Webberley to be struck off and for GenderGP to be shut down we need the GMC to understand that what GenderGP is doing is not "accepted medical practice". This is a legal term which is defined and qualified. Now, on the face of it, opposite sex-imitation medicine is accepted practice, because it has been done for many years and there is a body of evidence (yes, we all know it is piss-poor, but that's not the point) to support it. Thus, any action to convince the GMC to row back on its stance has to be built around the finer definition of accepted medical practice: In the UK, the legal definition of "accepted medical practice" is derived from the case law, particularly the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. This case established the standard of care required of medical professionals, stating that a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
The Bolam test is still widely used in the UK and has been affirmed in subsequent case law. It means that if a doctor can show that their actions were in line with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion, then they will not be found negligent.
The "responsible body of medical opinion" refers to a group of medical professionals who have relevant expertise in the area of practice in question. It is not necessary for every medical professional to agree on the standard of care, as long as there is a responsible body of opinion that supports the doctor's approach.
In practice, the determination of whether a particular practice is accepted or not will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the expert evidence presented by both sides. The court will consider the evidence and determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with the relevant standard of care.
This is where it gets interesting. Can we get the GMC to accept that WPATH is not a "responsible body of medical opinion"?
https://ourduty.group/education/wpaths-guidelines-are-junk-science/
For that to happen, the GMC needs to recognise WPATH (which is a body of medical opinion) as irresponsible. In its latest guidelines, it ignores the emergence of detransitioners, creates a new class of patient - eunuchs, and neglects to offer much guidance on the age of patients (so ignoring Gillick guidance). Furthermore, there is little appreciation of the recent wave of rebuttals and meta-analyses that all call so-called “gender affirming care” into question.
That all points to irresponsible behaviour from my perspective. What’s yours?