The British Medical Association (BMA) has been accused of undertaking a “witch-hunt” to try to identify which senior figure leaked that it was set to oppose the landmark Cass review on transgender healthcare.
It has warned its ruling council’s 69 members that whoever tipped off the media about its stance should own up or face their non-cooperation being seen as “an act of dishonesty”. Critics said its action is “disgraceful”, “Orwellian” and “witch-hunt-like”.
The BMA has been heavily criticised by key medical figures since it voted on 17 July to in effect reject Dr Hilary Cass’s report. It is the only medical organisation in the UK to not accept and find fault with her findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor.
The union has been in turmoil ever since. Its dismissal of the report as “unsubstantiated” has led to a serious split, resignations and huge tension within the body that represents about 195,000 doctors – a large majority of the UK medical profession.
The New Statesman revealed on 16 July that the BMA’s council was going to discuss a motion recommending that the union “disavow” the Cass review when it met the next day. That disclosure led to the motion being reworded, with the new version no longer using the word “disavow” and instead committing the BMA to “publicly critique” the findings.
Rachel Podolak, the union’s joint chief executive, has added to what some leading BMA figures have said is “a climate of fear” within it over the “toxic” subject of Cass by telling council members that an investigation into the leak had been launched and that the culprit should reveal themselves.
In a message posted on the council’s message board the day after the motion was passed, Podolak scolded whoever had leaked details of the two Cass-related motions and made clear that, because the confidentiality of council proceedings had been breached, “we are investigating further”.
She asked anyone who had shared information about the move to dissociate the BMA from the Cass report to contact her so that she could decide what purposes that had been done for.
Then, in language which some council members found threatening, she added: “Legal advice received confirms that failure to admit breach of confidentiality may be regarded as a denial, which in turn could be viewed as an act of dishonesty if/when responsibility is established.”
Dr Clare Gerada, an ex-BMA council member and ex-chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “I think the BMA are blaming the messenger, not themselves.” She questioned why it had adopted such a controversial position on such a sensitive subject without asking members for their views first. She is among an array of leading doctors who have signed a letter voicing serious concern at the BMA’s stance.
The BMA defended its actions. A spokesperson said: “The BMA treats very seriously any breaches of confidentiality, especially so where they include a breach of personal data.
“Leaking confidential information as well as that which contains personal data and then failing to declare it when asked, is likely to be a serious breach of our conduct and governance rules.
“In addition, the law contains restrictions on processing personal data and on disclosing confidential information which must be respected.”
It has set up a “task and finish” group to examine and “produce a critique” of Cass’s research and conclusions, which took four years to collate, including a focus on claimed “weaknesses in the methodologies used”.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which brings together doctors’ professional bodies, has criticised the BMA’s refusal to accept “the validity of the evidence and consequently the findings of the independent Cass review of gender identity services for children and young people.
“Our view is that further speculative work risks greater polarisation on this matter, which is not helpful.”
The BMA has also been criticised for decrying the government’s ban on puberty blockers. Cass warned that the drugs were not based on sound medical evidence and could cause harm.
