Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. What does this trial do? Put simply, it takes physically healthy children with normal pubertal development and subjects them to powerful drugs that may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage sexual function and make them unable to have children of their own. Serious stuff—and for what? To treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence that will probably resolve without treatment.

Let us look at this carefully. Gender incongruence is a subjective condition; it is how someone says they feel. There are no lab markers and no scans. That, of course, is not necessarily unusual. In fact, it is common in mental health conditions. Gender incongruence is often self-resolving; it gets better on its own. Again, this is not unusual in paediatrics. It is really common for children to be admitted to hospital for supported care for things like gastroenteritis and respiratory viruses. Puberty blockers are powerful drugs. This is a powerful treatment with significant long-term consequences. Again, this is not new to paediatrics. Some chemotherapy, for example, has substantial short and long-term consequences. But what is unusual and, I think, toxic is the combination of all three. Medicine is about balancing risk. Where else would we give powerful drugs with potentially serious long-term consequences for a subjective condition that is likely to get better on its own?

I understand that this trial has been approved, but time and again we have seen and heard how fear and hostility can distort priorities. We have seen tragedy occur when fears of accusations of racism limited mental health treatment. We have seen profound suffering when fear of accusations of Islamophobia limited inquiries into the grooming gangs. The healthcare of children distressed about their gender is another topic where there have been attempts to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia.

Such attempts were reported in relation to the Tavistock.

When considering treatments for life, with lifelong implications, we have a duty to be careful and sensible, so I ask the Secretary of State: why are this Government funding a trial that will cause harm to physically healthy children? These children may be 11 years old, at Tanner stage 2. Some of them are primary school children with only minimal signs of puberty. This is far too young. The MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at greatest risk; they may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period, and face a higher risk to fertility, because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2.

I am reminded of this point in the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock:

“There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.”

Yet as the Secretary of State confirmed, the children must consent or assent to being in the trial. Why did the Government not heed the MHRA’s recommendation of a minimum age of 14 years? This Labour Government think that 14 is too young to watch social media. Why do they think 11 is old enough for this trial?

What is the goal of the treatment? In the trial, the outcome is a short to medium-term effect on quality of life and body satisfaction. Does the Secretary of State believe this is proportionate to the risks of these medications? Is there any evidence suggesting that puberty blockers are safer than they were thought to be in 2024, when the Government banned them, following the expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines? Some have suggested that the drugs help adults to pass as the opposite sex. Is the long-term damage really worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? And it is just a few, because we know that the vast majority will be better without any treatment.

The Secretary of State said that “when it comes to eligibility, we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.” Even if we were to accept the premise that a very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinicians identify which those children might be? A study of clinical outcomes from kids treated at the Tavistock is due to be completed next year. That could help, so why is the Secretary of State not waiting until that report is completed before conducting an experiment on an unnecessarily broad group of children? Has evidence come to light since the Cass review that helps clinicians confidently work out which 11-year-olds will become adults with gender dysphoria and which will not?

The Secretary of State has said that the criteria will stop short-term harm, and that should mean that long-term harm will not occur or go unnoticed, but history is littered with examples of things that do not cause short-term harm but do cause long-term damage. He also suggested that the trial will resolve the dispute, but sadly, I do not think that will be the case, because, first, a single trial rarely resolves a dispute; and, secondly, the comparison group, who are not getting the puberty blockers, are not randomised and are an intrinsically different population. This is bound to be highlighted once the result is published. In medicine, we have a founding principle: primum non nocere—first, do no harm. I ask the Health Secretary to please cancel this trial before vulnerable children suffer unnecessary, irreversible harm on his watch.

[James Murray]

I agree with the shadow Minister that most children and young people who are questioning their identity and gender are likely to resolve those questions on their own, and I think Dr Cass would agree with that. As I said in my opening remarks, for the majority of children who question their gender, we should let them be; they will resolve the matter through their friends and family and their own development. We are talking here about a small subset within a small group of children who need further support. I also agree with the shadow Minister that the situation before Dr Cass did her review—the situation that had developed in the last few years before the turn of the decade—was totally unacceptable, and we should be clear that that was wrong.

The shadow Minister asked about protecting the young people involved in the trial from harm. As I set out, there is intense scrutiny, and there are robust mechanisms to prevent the children involved from being harmed. She mentioned the MHRA recommendation for the lower age limit. Initially, there was no lower age limit, but a scientific dialogue between the MHRA and the trial sponsor led to publication last week of the updated protocol, which recommended the minimum ages of 11 and 12.

The gateways to younger people and children becoming involved in the trial are significant. There must be not just consent or assent from the children, and consent from their parents or guardians, but approval from the NHS care team, the national multidisciplinary team and others before anyone can be involved. As I set out, I feel uncomfortable and uneasy when considering this matter, but I think that the right way for us to move forward is to have the clinical evidence on which to base decisions. I have received reassurances about there being the highest possible level of scrutiny and protection from harm for young people involved in the trial, and that is the basis on which, on balance, I think it is right for it to proceed.