What is chemical castration? Here's why doctors will be uneasy about using it on sex offenders
Chemical castration has been used on sex offenders in several countries over many years, with some success - but it remains controversial.
The principle of treatment, when used on men, is to inhibit the action of the sex hormone testosterone.
The expectation is that the offender will have fewer sexual fantasies and a lower sex drive.
Many of the drugs are more widely used to treat prostate cancer, where they reduce the growth of hormone-sensitive tumours. But they vary in how effective they are at treating sex offenders - and how swiftly they act.
Sky News was given exclusive access to a clinical trial in Stockholm, Sweden, of a drug called degarelix.
Results showed that just two weeks after the first injection, men - who were living in the community - had a significantly reduced risk of committing child sexual abuse.
But like other clinical trials, it was relatively small with only 52 men taking part. The evidence base for chemical castration is limited.
The drugs can also have side effects, including the development of breast tissue in men, depression and hot flushes.
And some criminologists question whether lower reoffending rates really are as a result of treatment.
It's possible that men offered a shorter prison sentence in exchange for taking a drug to suppress testosterone may simply be motivated to stay out of prison when they are released.
That hasn't stopped many countries using chemical castration. Germany, Denmark and the UK have used it on men who volunteer for treatment.
Read more:
In England, a trial has been running in prisons in the South West since 2022 - and is now being cited by the Home Office as a reason to expand a treatment programme to 20 regions around the country.
But the drugs have been used in the UK far longer.
In 2012, it was revealed that around 100 sex offenders were being treated at HMP Whatton in Nottinghamshire, either with chemical castration or with drugs such as Prozac, which can alter patterns of thinking.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is reported to be considering making treatment compulsory for serious sex offenders.
That would be deeply controversial with the medical profession in the UK. Consent is a long-standing principle of treatment with any procedure.
But in the US, chemical castration is mandatory for some men in several states.
California was the first, amending its penal code in 1996 to include it as a punishment for those convicted of sexual abuse of minors. Florida, Texas, Louisiana are among those that followed suit.
Poland, Russia, Moldova, and Estonia have also introduced compulsory treatment for paedophiles.
But in the UK, without strong evidence on the risks and benefits of using the drugs, there will be professional unease about forcing men to undergo castration - even if they are convicted of the most heinous sexual offences against children.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review?
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced the government's Spending Review, which outlines the day-to-day budgets for departments over the next three years. The review will see NHS funding increase by 3% a year as well as more money for defence and housing. But other departments will see their budget cuts - including 1.7% at the Home Office, 2.7% at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and 6.9% at the Foreign Office. Here BBC correspondents analyse how some key services have fared and what the decisions may mean for you. The education sector will see one of the largest funding boosts. There is money for England's schools - especially crumbling ones - as well as for training and upskilling. Those key takeaways are nestled among rehashed pledges like expanding free school meals and introducing free breakfast clubs. The core schools budget will rise by £2bn in real terms by 2029, the Department for Education says, but much of it will go on those previous commitments. Falling pupil numbers means the department can make some savings, but that money still has to pay for an awful lot. The government is staring down the barrel of ever-growing demand for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support. The Spending Review does not seem to address deficits racked up by councils supporting those children, but it does appear to have set aside around £700m to reform the system. Leaky schools on the government's rebuilding programme - many still waiting for builders - will also be wondering if a £2.4bn annual cash injection will suffice. The 3% annual real-terms increase in NHS spending announced by the chancellor will look generous to departments with low or no increases. That number covers day-to-day spending by the NHS, for example staff pay and the costs of medicines and patients care. The overall annual increase for the Department of Health is 2.8% - one of the highest departmental increases in the Spending Review - and includes other areas like medicines regulation and pandemic preparedness, as well as the NHS. It is worth pointing out that the health service needs real-term spending growth every year to cope with an increasing and ageing population alongside rising bills for medicines and new treatments. The long-term trend for annual UK health spending in recent decades has been around 3.5%. Aside from day-to-day funding there is also capital spending, which covers investment in buildings and equipment. In real-terms there will be no increase each year. The big question is whether that will be enough to enable staff to deliver more operations and procedures. One of Labour's pledges is to ensure more than 90% of patients in England start treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Currently it is less than 60%. Hitting that target is a big ask with all the other claims on spending. "We are happy bunnies" is how someone from the Department for Transport (DfT) reacted to the Spending Review. That is despite the department seeing its annual day-to-day budget decrease by 5% - the largest cut in the review. That hit is mostly down to a big drop in the subsidies the government has been paying to train companies since the Covid-19 pandemic. Capital expenditure - meaning money for long-term infrastructure investment – on transport is actually going up by 3.9%, among the highest. Long-term investment in transport infrastructure is clearly central to Labour's plan for "national renewal", so a good chunk of the chancellor's speech was devoted to various upgrades. Some we already knew about, some we didn't. They include a new Liverpool to Manchester rail line, a freeze on the £3 cap on bus fares in England until March 2027 and more than £15.6bn on new trams, trains and buses outside of London. The Conservatives say a lot of this is just rehashing of old announcements with little detail attached. The government says it will lay some meat on the bones of these plans next week in its so-called "infrastructure week". Apart from bus fares, which is a continuation of an existing policy, Reeves' plans are in keeping with the general theme of this Spending Review: ambitious but ultimately not materialising for quite some time - until the 2030s at the earliest. Seven ways the Spending Review affects you What has the chancellor has announced? The key points Watch: Where the money is being spent You could almost hear the sigh of relief from social landlords when £39bn was announced for social and affordable housing. Many had warned that without significant funding and certainty, the government would never reach its target of building 1.5 million homes over this parliament. But they've called Wednesday's announcement a "game changer". Guaranteeing how much social landlords will receive in rents over the next 10 years means that housing associations can plan how much they have to invest in building. Housing charity Shelter called the investment a "watershed moment". The charity's head of policy, Charlie Trew, said the amount was 70% more than the previous government invested but it was still not enough to end homelessness for good. The charity called for a "clear target" for exactly how many social rent homes are planned. A 2.3% real terms yearly funding increase for policing in England and Wales is slightly better than senior officers had feared, but forces are already warning of "some ruthless prioritisation", arguing that most of the money will be "swallowed up" by police pay rises. The chancellor stressed that an increase of "more than £2bn" will mean government pledges on cutting crime and increasing police numbers can be kept. On immigration, there is more money for the Border Security Command, rising to £280m extra a year, with promises of new kit including an army of drones to improve surveillance. Reeves also promised that the use of hotels for asylum seekers would end by 2029. But with overall Home Office spending being cut by 1.7% a year, there are knotted eyebrows at how this is all going to add up and be achieved while managing a sizeable squeeze to the department's budget. Just recently we were told that offenders recalled to prison would be let out earlier due to overcrowding. We know the government is planning on building three more prisons to deal with the capacity crisis. The chancellor said £7bn would be spent on that building project - that's more than we were told earlier this month, when the figure stood at £4.7bn. The increase in funding - an extra 1.8% each year is the second highest rise in the review - indicates the severity and urgency of the problem. But building more prisons will take years. Also announced was £700m to reform the probation service - that cash will fund further recruitment on top of the 1,300 officers the government had already said it will employ this year. Several probation officers welcomed the investment but raised concerns about their "increasing workload" and when the new hires will be functional. The chancellor has made full use of the extra £113bn in capital spending available as a result of changing her own borrowing rules. There are some big ticket items on the list, most of which were announced before Wednesday, but these large projects will take many years before people will notice the difference. An extra £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C nuclear plant will be spent over at least a decade. The same is true of an extra £39bn for affordable and social housing. New announcements included £10bn for making homes more energy efficient and a new carbon capture project in Scotland. Connecting people and places is also growth-enhancing, but again the £16bn on transport links outside of London will not see quick returns. Business groups are largely supportive of these ambitious plans and the chancellor will hope it persuades firms to spend some of their own money to boost business investment, which has been chronically low. They may want to see the detail of the upcoming infrastructure and industrial strategies. There is jam in here but it will take time to spread and the results will take longer than tomorrow. The chancellor announced that funding for science - or research and development (R&D) - would increase to just over £22.6 billion per year by 2029/30. That funding pays for scientific research across government departments such as health, defence and energy. That overall figure also includes the budget for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) itself, which has been given £16bn per year and will use it to fund research for everything from drug development to materials science to AI – £2bn has been earmarked for the latter from 2026/27 to 2029/30. While the chancellor called this a "record", it is broadly in line with projected inflation. But the UK's Campaign for Science and Engineering said it was welcome confirmation that the R&D budget was being "protected in tough fiscal circumstances". Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, said the UK continued to lag behind competitors in the G7 on research and innovation investment. "We should be looking to lead," he added in a statement. "We must also go further to attract and retain global talent. "The UK's sky-high upfront visa costs are an unnecessary deterrent at a time when our competitors are rolling out the welcome mat for the brightest minds."
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Baby girl given overdose before death, inquest hears
A "very sick" newborn baby girl died shortly after accidently being given a large overdose of medication, an inquest has heard. Polly Lindop died within 24 hours of being born at Manchester's St Mary's Hospital on 13 March 2023. Manchester Coroners Court was told nurses in the neo-natal intensive care unit mistakenly gave the baby 10 times the dose of a drug she was prescribed. However, a medical expert in the case said Polly's condition was already deteriorating and there was a "very low" chance of her surviving, even without the overdose. Polly, who was born 10 weeks prematurely, suffered a cardiac arrest 10 minutes after being given the excessive dose of the drug Atracuriam. The court heard medics made a mistake entering the dosage on the infusion pump. Her mother Kimberley Lindop told the court her daughter had gone from being "fine to very poorly in 45 minutes". She described a "chaotic" scene as hospital staff tried to save the child, who died a few hours later after suffering a second cardiac arrest. The court heard the nurses involved and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust had accepted the overdose mistake had been made. Mrs Lindop said the family had not been told the details of the mistake at the time but "just knew something had happened". However, a post-mortem examination found the primary cause of Polly's death was sepsis and prematurity and that she had suffered severe lung damage. Dr Naomi Carter, a former Home Office forensic pathologist who jointly carried out the post-mortem examination, said it was "difficult to speculate" on how much difference the medication overdose had made in Polly's death. "It may have hastened the event of the cardiac arrest", she told the hearing. However, Dr Carter said Polly was "a very, very sick infant" in a critical condition who would "more likely than not died of her medical problems", even without the overdose. Greater Manchester Police launched an investigation into possible gross negligence manslaughter at the time but earlier this year said no criminal charges were being brought. Det Ch Insp Mark Davis told the court that after liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service, it was decided there was "no realistic chance of prosecution." The inquest continues. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230. Police investigate hospital over newborn's death Greater Manchester Police Manchester Coroners Service
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Around 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against ‘unsafe' assisted dying Bill
Around 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying Bill describing it as 'simply not safe'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. But in a letter, published this week, doctors from across the NHS have urged lawmakers to listen to those 'who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill'. They warn the Bill 'poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. In its current form the proposed legislation, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. The letter to MPs said: 'As experienced medical professionals who regularly work with dying patients and who have reviewed the worldwide evidence on assisted dying, it is our opinion that this Bill poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce, and we urge you to vote against it. 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. 'This Bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe. 'This is the most important piece of healthcare legislation for 60 years and we urge you to listen to the doctors who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill.' Sir Ed Davey welcomed the letter on Monday, telling Sky News he had 'real concerns'. 'I have voted against this assisted dying legislation, as I did on previous occasions,' the Liberal Democrat leader said. 'I have real concerns about the pressure on individuals, that they will put on themselves, if they think they are a burden on their family, so I welcome this letter.' He added: 'I hope, as time has gone on, as the arguments have been better exposed, that MPs will switch sides and join the side that I and many MPs are on.' But Sir Chris Bryant said he would be voting in favour. The technology minister told Sky News: 'The Government doesn't have a formal position at all and individual members are free to choose how they vote. 'I'm not going to hide my own personal preference. I abstained on the first time round, I decided I wasn't going to vote because I wanted to hear the debate. 'I have listened to a lot of the debate. Of course, I don't want anybody to feel that they are a burden on society and that should lead them towards taking their own life, but I also have heard the cries of people who are absolutely miserable, and that's why I will be voting for the Bill.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Opinions among members of the medical profession remain varied, with TV doctor Hilary Jones describing assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, told the PA news agency he believes medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. While Friday is expected to see debate on further amendments to the Bill, it is thought a vote on the overall legislation might not take place until the following Friday, June 20.
