The High Court has heard claims that the health regulator, the Care Quality Commission, \u00ab\u00a0acted irrationally\u00a0\u00bb when it registered England’s first private clinic offering gender treatment to under-18s.<\/p>\n
The case, brought by a former nurse and the mother of a 16-year-old, claims the watchdog did not consider all relevant information and should also have imposed conditions on the clinic.<\/p>\n
The CQC says there is ample evidence that the clinic is committed to the safety and best interests of its patients.<\/p>\n
Lawyers for the Gender Plus Healthcare Clinic, which was rated outstanding last year, called the legal action \u00ab\u00a0fatally flawed\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
The former nurse, Susan Evans, and the mother – who wants to remain anonymous – are challenging the CQC’s decision to register the clinic in January last year.<\/p>\n
They are also challenging a decision made last December to continue the registration and to allow the clinic to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16- and 17-year olds.<\/p>\n
The clinic, which has services in Birmingham and Leeds, treats people aged 16 and over, including by prescribing hormones, such as oestrogen or testosterone.<\/p>\n
Cross-sex hormones are given to people who identify as a gender that is different to their biological sex. The medication helps someone who is transitioning to develop characteristics associated with their preferred gender.<\/p>\n
For instance, it would help a trans man, a biological female who identifies as a man, develop a deeper voice and facial hair. Existing NHS guidance allows the hormones to be prescribed to people aged 16 and over.<\/p>\n
However, in line with NHS rules, the new clinic does not prescribe puberty blockers which suppress the release of hormones.<\/p>\n
Tom Cross KC, barrister for the two women, told the court that in deciding the clinic should continue to be registered, \u00ab\u00a0the CQC has acted irrationally\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
He argued that the decision did not factor in some of the conclusions of last year’s Cass Review into gender treatment for young people \u00ab\u00a0which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
The Cass Review urged \u00ab\u00a0extreme caution\u00a0\u00bb when prescribing hormone treatment for under-18s.<\/p>\n
Mr Cross expressed concern that the private clinic lacked the safeguarding measures required by the NHS and urged the court \u00ab\u00a0at the very least\u00a0\u00bb to require the CQC \u00ab\u00a0to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
For the CQC, Jamie Burton KC said the regulator had found no evidence of \u00ab\u00a0improper decision-making or anything that might flag a concern\u00a0\u00bb and that the clinic was found to be \u00ab\u00a0committed to the safety and best interests of its patients\u00a0\u00bb and was acting \u00ab\u00a0in line with national guidance\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a0In its professional judgment, it found the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16- and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes,\u00a0\u00bb he added.<\/p>\n
Peter Mant KC, barrister for Gender Plus Healthcare Ltd, said there was no requirement for private providers to mirror NHS care and that the claimants’ concerns \u00ab\u00a0do not have a high quality evidence base\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
The hearing will continue on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The High Court has heard claims that the health regulator, the Care Quality Commission, \u00ab\u00a0acted irrationally\u00a0\u00bb when it registered England’s first private clinic offering gender treatment to under-18s. The case, brought by a former nurse and the mother of a 16-year-old, claims the watchdog did not consider all relevant information and should also have imposed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-8828","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placedesnations.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}