This is an exceptional step that the High Authority for Health (HAS) is taking to protect the experts called upon for one of its working groups. On Friday March 8, this independent authority, responsible for developing good professional practices, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Court of Montreuil. Issued on February 20, it ordered him to communicate the names of the members of the working group responsible for developing recommendations concerning transition pathways for transgender people from the age of 16, to the requesting association Jurists for Children .
The HAS indicates in a press release that it asks the judge of cassation “ to stay the execution of the judgment to protect the experts called upon as part of this work “. Recalling the importance of the principle of confidentiality, she considers that it is “all the more important on the subject considered as it takes place in a sensitive context with an increased risk of pressure and consequences for the private lives of the members of the working group. »
Launched in April 2023, it is made up of around thirty caregivers who are sociologist and pharmacologist experts as well as users and user associations. Their recommendations, intended for health professionals and social workers, aim, among other things, to “ improve the organization of care in order to ensure the quality and safety of care for this population ” And ” structure the medical care of the transition process “, according to the framework note.
Administrative and legal procedures
But for several months, the association Jurists for Children (JPE) has been multiplying administrative and legal procedures in order to access the list of members of the working group – surname, first name, position – as well as meeting minutes while the HAS refuses to do so. Until now, this list and everything used to develop the recommendations is published once they have been finalized and validated by the HAS colleges.
According to JPE, its communication would allow “ to ensure the balance of the group, its impartiality and the absence of conflicts of interest”. The association ensures that “the lack of transparency suggests that the participants in this group are health professionals who are experiencing medical transition and who therefore do not have the impartiality expected to recommend best practice measures in such an important area than sensitive. »
You have 65.33% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.