A HIGH-PROFILE legal campaigner has grilled Wes Streeting after Labour’s move to keep the Tory emergency ban on puberty blockers.
Jolyon Maugham – who is the director of the Good Law Project – took to Twitter/X with a lengthy thread of 25 different questions for the Health Secretary after the move was confirmed.
Streeting argued on Sunday that children’s healthcare “must always be led with evidence”.
READ MORE: Aberdeen: Climate activists warn more protests could come
He added that the Cass Review – which “obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method” according to a recent review by the prestigious Yale University – found there is “not enough evidence about the long-term impact of puberty blockers” and that this should have been established “before they were ever prescribed”.
He added: “We don’t yet know the risks of stopping pubertal hormones at this critical life stage. That is the basis upon which I am making decisions. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.”
In response, Maugham asked Streeting a list of 25 questions (below) including about the “explosion of deaths amongst those on the NHS waiting list’ since NHS England introduced a softer version of the ban, that the move means the UK now has the “most restrictive regime in the Western world” and numerous “risks” the barrister thought Streeting was ignoring.
I have some questions for @wesstreeting. 🧵 https://t.co/ZAVp6sVWI2
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) July 14, 2024
He also asked: “Where does Hilary Cass' report recommend the ban on puberty blockers that you are implementing?”
The legal expert also asked a question of both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner after his government controversially offered to meet author J.K. Rowling on the issue.
Maugham tweeted: “How do you justify your Government's offer to meet JK Rowling but, in a world in which your predecessor told civil servants not to consult with trans people or their organisations, not to meet them?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel