Health Council: transgender care for young people is carefully organised

On 30 June 2026, the Health Council of the Netherlands issued its advisory report Transgender care for young people to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. The council concludes that care in the Netherlands is carefully organised.

The assessment

According to the council, medical treatment is preceded by extensive exploration and diagnostic assessment, and only then may puberty blockers or hormones be prescribed. The council states that the treatments have the intended physical effects and that mental health appears to improve.

The uncertainties

Limited data are available on adverse effects. The council sees no reason to withhold treatment on that basis.

The reason for the advice

In May 2024, the ministry requested the advice after the House of Representatives called for an investigation; see the House of Representatives calls for an investigation.

What the Health Council is

The Health Council of the Netherlands is the independent scientific advisory body to the government and parliament on matters of public health. The council has existed since 1902. For each advisory report, it appoints a committee of experts from the relevant fields, who assess the state of scientific knowledge. An advisory report from the council is not binding. The minister decides what to do with it and accounts for that decision to the House of Representatives.

The background

The advisory report was preceded by more than two years of debate. In October 2023, Zembla broadcast a critical programme about the Dutch Protocol. In February 2024, the House of Representatives adopted a motion calling for research into the outcomes. In April 2024, the Cass Review was published in England, reaching the opposite conclusion about the evidence supporting the treatment. The cabinet’s response to that report is set out in the June 2024 letter to the House of Representatives. The Dutch assessment therefore took place while several countries had already changed their policies.

Why the outcome differs from that in other countries

The assessments from other countries and the Health Council largely consider the same studies. The difference lies in how the evidence is weighed. The British, Swedish and Finnish authorities asked whether the evidence was strong enough to justify an invasive treatment for minors, and answered that question in the negative. The Health Council also considers how care is organised in the Netherlands: with extensive diagnostic assessment beforehand, in specialised centres and with support throughout the entire process. According to the council, the available data, despite their limitations, are not sufficient reason to withhold treatment from young people.

What the advisory report does not address

The advisory report addresses whether care is organised responsibly. It does not resolve the practical problems: waiting times for an initial consultation are still measured in years; see the page on waiting times and the care pathway. The uncertainty about long-term effects also remains as long as there is no research following large groups of young people over many years. The content of the treatment itself is set out in the quality standard, which is maintained by the professional association.

Significance

With this advisory report, an independent advisory council in the Netherlands has assessed and upheld the treatment of young people. For healthcare providers and young people on the waiting list, this means that care will continue as before. For critics, the question remains why the Netherlands reaches a different conclusion from the countries that had previously adopted the protocol.

The same studies lead to different conclusions in different countries. The United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland view the uncertainty as a reason for caution; the Dutch Health Council views it as insufficient reason to stop. More about the situation in the Netherlands can be found on the page about gender care in the Netherlands.