Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department of Health and Social Care
Joy Morrissey
Main Page: Joy Morrissey (Conservative - Beaconsfield)Department Debates - View all Joy Morrissey's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial
Joy Morrissey Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The truth is that this clinical trial is flawed, and we should not be experimenting on children. We should be protecting children from many harms, such as alcohol and nicotine. We have things such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and for marriage, to protect children. It is important to remember that a child’s prefrontal cortex does not fully develop until their mid-20s, so even their ability to grasp the long-term effects of any decision is limited.
Although a diagnosis is necessary for participation in the trial, it is not sufficient in determining whether medical intervention should take place. Cass directly makes this point:
“Although a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has been seen as necessary for initiating medical treatment, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.”
The PATHWAYS trial uses the ICD-11—the 11th edition of the “International Classification of Diseases”—diagnosis of gender incongruence, which simply requires a desire to transition. The diagnosis is subjective, based on how the child feels. Can the long-term risk of medical intervention be justified by such a vague diagnosis? If the core diagnostic tool cannot predict outcomes with confidence, the trial would expose children to harm without a sound basis for believing that medical intervention is in their best interest.
The trial has been framed as a pathway to clarity, yet it is flawed before it has even begun. Proceeding is not neutrality but a decision with consequences. The trial would see harmful, long-term and irreversible damage to children, and should be cancelled.