Summary of complaint
We received complaints from some viewers unhappy with the choice of contributor and the views expressed during a discussion about a leaked letter from an NHS Trust referencing induced lactation in trans women. The letter was reported as saying that “the milk [produced by induced lactation] is comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby.”
Our response
The final segment of this edition focused on the publication of a letter from a medical director at an NHS Trust, written in response to campaign groups, which said that transgender women’s milk is just as good for babies as breast milk, referring to studies and WHO guidance.
Strong criticism of the letter’s contents by campaign groups was widely reported and so the programme sought reaction from Kate Luxion, an academic with relevant experience who was introduced as a “Research Fellow in Creative Health at the University College London and a lactation consultant trainee”.
During the discussion some of those criticisms were highlighted, with presenter Rajini Vaidyanathan pointing out that:
“There have been campaign groups who have criticised this letter. One, Policy Exchange, has said that the letter is unbalanced and naïve in its assertion that the secretions produced by a male on hormones could nourish an infant in the way a mother’s breastmilk can.”
And that:
“Another thing I’d like to put to you from critics of this letter - saying the NHS should not be indulging in this nonsense. A child's welfare must always take precedence over identity politics and what they describe as “contested beliefs systems that are not evidence-based”. Just once again, you say that there is evidence in this?”
After broadcast we received complaints suggesting that Kate Luxion was an inappropriate contributor and that the discussion was misleading or misrepresented the science.
Some viewers also specifically objected to the reference to “WHO guidance” in the introduction and while the letter from Dr Rachael James on behalf of University Hospitals Sussex does cite WHO guidance as part of a broader response, we accept that our script could have been clearer on this point.
Although we believe viewers would clearly understand that the discussion represented Kate Luxion’s assessment of the existing evidence, and that this was robustly challenged with other perspectives, we accept it may have been better to have interviewed Kate Luxion alongside another voice when examining the issues raised by the letter.
Ěý