Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025

Establishment of Rat Models Mimicking Gender-affirming Hormone Therapies
Published on: January 10, 2025
Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows
C Ronny Cheung1,2, Evgenia Abbruzzese3, Elaine Lockhart4
1General Paediatrics, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK ronny.cheung@gstt.nhs.uk.
Abstract:
In April 2024, the final report of the Cass Review, an independent review chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, was published, offering recommendations to improve gender identity services for children and young people in the UK. The core purpose of the Review was to improve care for children and adolescents. Commissioned by National Health Service England, the Review identified a weak evidence base for medical endocrine interventions and recommended that these treatments be provided within a structured research framework. The Review received widespread support from the clinical community. However, in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara et al-a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review's role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by University of York (UK), are unfounded.These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review's recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues.
Related Concept Videos
Standards of Care I
Socioemotional Experience and Gender Development
The Ratio of X Chromosome to Autosomes
Normal male Drosophila has a ratio of one X chromosome to two sets of autosomes. In contrast, normal female...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities II
Communication between nurses and...
Sources of Law
Constitutional law is foundational, deriving from federal and state constitutions, and...
Barriers to Effective Communication II
Cultural barriers:
Differences in values, beliefs, religion, knowledge, and tradition can significantly impact communication. Awareness of nonverbal cues is critical, especially when conversing with a patient from a different culture. What appears appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another.
Semantic barriers:
As a result of their tendency to use...

