This is a summary of the closing submissions made by Mr Simon Jackson QC on behalf of the General Medical Council. This is not a verbatim record and should not be taken as such. I will post a similar summary of the closing submissions of Mr Ian Stern QC on behalf of Dr Webberly.
I will then post my summarised note of the legal advice which the Chairman Mr Angus Macpherson has provided to his fellow Panel members. This advice was the subject of detailed discussions with both parties' Counsel.
HW accepted that the standard by which breach of duty was to be assessed was the standard of a reasonably competent General Practitioner with a special interest in gender dysphoria. HW held herself out as a Gender Specialist and as an expert. This was the basis upon which HW
wrote to other GPs so that other GPs would look to her as an expert in the field. Tribunal must ask itself 1/Was HW competent to provide care for this cohort of patients? 2/Has HW provided an adequate standard of care? 3/Did HW's model of care provide an adequate standard of care
4/Did HW's standard of care meet the relevant standard namely that of a reasonably competent General Practitioner with an interest in gender dysphoria.
Amendment please : to "with a special interest in gender dysphoria".
These questions are judged by looking at the clinical consensus and the guidelines. GMC says these are the standards HW accepted for herself. HW must be judged by the then prevailing standards, not by hindsight and not by guidance which has evolved since. The relevant guidelines
were the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines published in 2012 and the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for 2009.
Looking for consensus within clinical practice would involve at least referring to the key stages of good medical practice taking a history, examination, assessment, diagnosis, prescribing ( if appropriate), communication with other doctors, and referral when indicated. Noting
that HW departed from the above approach seemingly taking the view that these steps were not necessary or not indicated for these patients. HW asserted that it was not her role to question a patient's identity. GMC have never suggested this was her role but looking at WPATH
which advised making a psychological assessment before making a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and before deciding on the need for any medical intervention. HW took the view that this was not necessary and would delay treatment compared with "what the patient wanted". No doubt HW
had some experience but was she able to depart from guidelines in reliance on just that experience? It was accepted that the purpose of prescribing puberty blockers was to give a patient time to think. How long this time should be is a medical issue . HW was aware of this and
referred in her evidence to taking account of Patient C possibly being on blockers for 3/4 years. In deciding when to commence puberty blockers account had to be taken of medical issues ( bone density for e.g.) and also the psycho -social development of the child.
Sorry, have to drive home now. Back a.s.a.p.
GMC takes into account that Patient A's twin and sister were going through puberty - Dr Klink thought A could go through puberty later. No one could fail to be moved by the selfless care of A's mother for Patient A and the commencement of gender affirming hormones has had
positive outcomes. But this is not stand alone evidence that HW's practice complied with current good practice such as we could assure the GMC Panel that Patient A was not an outlier. This treatment is at the frontier of care for these very young trans patients. New heading
Training:all doctors are governed by a duty to maintain their competence and performance through appropriate training. SJ is referring to GMC published document "Good Medical Practice". Para 7 is about competency, how do you maintain it and how do you prove it.
Para 7 "You must be competent in all aspects of your work, including management, research and training", Para 9 "You must regularly take part in activities that maintain and develop your competence and performance", Para 14 "You must recognise and work within the limits of your
competence", Para 15 "You must provide a good standard of practice and care.... adequately assess the patient's conditions .. all patients ....where necessary examine the patient " HW is saying she does not need to carry out a physical examination - she is ignoring her duties.
Guidelines again - "referral as appropriate", Para 16 - in prescribing drugs or treatment to serve the patient's needs - and note that when assessing treatment to consider whether medication was the only treatment which would alleviate distress - medication think about whether to
prescribe or not and also the timing. Para 16b "provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence". That necessitated HW, before prescribing, to undertake a mindcheck and to ask herself "Before I do this - what is the best evidence in the best interests of this
adolescent." This involves checking the prevailing consensus and taking advice. It is a theme of HW's approach to say "There are no guidelines" ,but no, there was guidance, she could have spoken to people, there was a consensus - see the Guidance
Para (d) "consult with colleagues where appropriate". the GMC say that it is remarkable that HW did not consult with anybody else except her husband when she could have done so. Further duty " to check care is compatible" including where self prescribed or over the counter
medication is involved. What other treatments were in progress? In Patient A's case treatment was being provided by the Tavistock and this key issue should have been addressed. Look at HW's attitude to other providers - HW set herself apart from the mainstream of clinical care
HW says she followed international guidelines but note that the guidance she relies on re Patient A was published after the date of her treatment. In a young and rapidly evolving field prescribers must rely on experts. But there was no solid evidence for prescribing to someone as
young as Patient A. HW has been a successful advocate and the GMC rightly acknowledges this but this compassion has not been matched by her keeping up to the required standard. "No formal training" says HW. GMC says she could have sought this out. She could have sought help from
nearest teaching hospital in Cardiff. I asked her about this and HW said "You know I haven't done that". SJ I have to ask Why? Dr Dean spoke about opportunities for learning as did Dr Boumer (?) also although he was selective. GMC says apprenticeship provides good training - a
supervisor can look at your practice and guide/approve. Note that HW was entirely self validated. What did her patients know of her alleged training and experience? Of any further study? HW could have gone abroad. In 2019 HW went to the U.S. to a clinic run by Dr Olson-Kennedy
When asked about whether Dr O-K ran her practice on an MDT basis or not HW said she did not know. HW had set out from the start on seeking to set up an online service and to develop the techniques and methods for prescribing remotely. This concept is referred to in HW's statement
in her letter 31.08.2016 re a presentation HW was to give in Amsterdam- describes a proposed model which was different from the MDT approach. Ref to "task and finish" work being done and where Dr Dean was an onlooker but no evidence that HW's alternative would reach standard

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with The Helen Webberley Tribunal

The Helen Webberley Tribunal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

6 Oct
Good morning everyone. Just reporting in ..... have been here since 9.30 a.m. but we are not starting until 11.30 a.m. Today should just be submissions on the law and from remarks made at the close yesterday it seems these will revolve around the issue of consent and whether ctd
a parent can give consent to treatment on behalf of a child.
We're back. Further discussions about the legal advice which the Chair will give to the other Panel members. Both parties' Counsel wish to comment on the draft legal advice which the Chair has already proffered to them. Back at 1.15 pm.
Read 8 tweets
30 Sep
Good morning. I will be tweeting today from Helen Webberley's Tribunal @RachelWilde13. Proceedings start at 9:30am
Clerk has just advised that when they read out the statement from Patient A they usually go 'at lightning speed'. If it becomes a problem to tweet that fast I may take notes and tweet later on.
They are in private session. Will start tweeting when the session is opened to the public.
Read 16 tweets
29 Sep
New afternoon thread. We start at 2:30
And we're off. Some rebuttal evidence regarding travel arrangements in April 2017. Mr Gale, pharmacist, has provided a one page statement showing the procedure for login. IS is content for this evidence to be admitted. Waiting for Mr Singh to confirm arrival.
D55 and D56 are the documents - booking and google entries. IS - I have looked at Mr Stubbs statement. Awaiting Mr Stubbs statement to the Chair and tribunal.
Read 13 tweets
29 Sep
Good morning. I will be tweeting today from Helen Webberley's Tribunal @RachelWilde13. Proceedings scheduled to start at 9am, but might be delayed until 9:30
2 new documents received from defendent - D58 and D59. Exhibits D30, T31, D45, D46, D57
We have Nigel Westwood (NW), Dr Walter Bouman (WB), Ryan Donoghue (RD), Angus Macpherson (AM), Ian Stern (IS), Simon Jackson (SJ), Sewa Singh (SS) clerk
Read 101 tweets
27 Sep
Good morning from Manchester and Helen Webberley (HW)'s tribunal. @Jeeeez17 tweeting in blocks through the day which is expected to be cross examination of her defence witnesses by the GMC's QC Mr Jackson (SJ)
HW's QC is Ian Stern (IS) and P stands for [tribunal] panel
The first defence witness is due to be Dr Vickie Pasterski (VP) a psychologist and this afternoon we're expecting Dr. Daniel E. Shumer (DS) a pediatric endocrinologist in Northville, Michigan, USA. We're currently running slightly late for a planned 9.30am start
Read 254 tweets
24 Sep
24th September resumed at 4:20pm to hear witness- Dr Schumer (DS).
Witness affirms he shall tell truth.

Chair - Afternoon and introductions. See how far we get, but we'll look forward to seeing you as early as possible on Monday afternoon Dr. Shumer.
IS points to DS's C.V. and asks for him to give us the highlights.

DS- N.W. Uni. Medical school Paediatrics- Vermont. Paediatric endocrinology at Boston. Harvard school of public health - Michigan.
DS cont...Child and adolescent gender clinic -we provide care for gender non-conforming children and adults.

IS- Clinical interests-sex specialists, research o gender dysphoria, various institutional positions what role do you play.. fellowship curriculum on pdtc endocrinology
Read 28 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!