The British Medical Association (BMA) has been accused of mounting a “witch hunt” to try to identify which senior official leaked information that she opposed the groundbreaking Cass inquiry into transgender healthcare.
It has warned the 69-member governing council that anyone who tipped off the media about its position must admit it or else their refusal will be seen as “an act of dishonesty”. Critics have called his action “disgraceful”, “Orwellian” and “witch-hunt-like”.
The BMA has been heavily criticised by leading medical figures since it voted on 17 July to effectively reject Dr Hilary Cass’s report. It is the only medical organisation in the UK not to have accepted or criticised its findings, which were accepted by the previous government and its Labour successor.
The union has been in turmoil ever since. The dismissal of the report as “unfounded” has led to a major rift, resignations and huge tensions within the body that represents around 195,000 doctors – a large majority of the British medical profession.
The New Statesman revealed on 16 July that the BMA council would debate a motion recommending that the union “reject” the Cass review when it met the following day. The revelation led to a rewording of the motion, with the new version no longer using the word “reject” and instead requiring the BMA to “publicly criticise” the findings.
Rachel Podolak, the union’s joint chief executive, has contributed to what some senior BMA figures are calling a “climate of fear” within the union over the “toxic” topic of Cass, by telling councillors an investigation into the leak had been launched and the perpetrator should identify himself.
In a message posted on the council’s noticeboard the day after the motion was passed, Podolak reprimanded whoever leaked the details of the two Cass-related motions and made it clear that because the confidentiality of council meetings had been breached, “we are investigating the matter further.”
She asked anyone who had shared information about the move to disassociate the BMA from the Cass report to contact her so she could determine the purpose of that move.
She then added, in language that some councillors found threatening: “Legal advice received suggests that failure to admit a breach of confidentiality could be seen as a denial, which in turn could be seen as an act of dishonesty if/when responsibility is established.”
Dr Clare Gerada, a former BMA councillor and former chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “I think the BMA is blaming the messenger, not itself.” She questioned why it had taken such a controversial stance on such a sensitive issue without first asking its members for their views. She is one of a number of leading doctors who signed a letter in which serious concerns were expressed about the BMA’s position.
The BMA defended its actions. A spokesperson said: “The BMA takes any breach of confidentiality very seriously, particularly where it involves a breach of personal data.
“Leaking confidential information and information containing personal data and then failing to report it when requested is likely to be a serious violation of our Code of Conduct and Governance.
“In addition, the law contains restrictions on the processing of personal data and on the disclosure of confidential information, which must be respected.”
A ‘task and wrap-up’ group was set up to examine and ‘critically review’ the Cass research and conclusions, which took four years to compile, focusing on perceived ‘weaknesses in the methodologies used’.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which represents the professional bodies of doctors, has criticised the BMA’s refusal to recognise ‘the validity of the evidence and therefore the findings of the independent Cass inquiry into gender identity services for children and young people’.
“We believe that further speculative work risks creating more polarization in this area, which is not helpful.”
The BMA has also been criticised for criticising the government’s ban on puberty blockers, with Cass warning that the drugs were not based on sound medical evidence and could be harmful.