Good Law project have succeeded...

(380 Posts)
Wandawomble Fri 26-Mar-21 12:12:41

goodlawproject.org/news/tavistock-success/

OP’s posts: |
Wandawomble Fri 26-Mar-21 12:12:57

“Loving parents”

OP’s posts: |
Wandawomble Fri 26-Mar-21 12:16:21

So now we will see a targeted campaign to force parents into consent for their children by emotional blackmail - and the same parents will be first in the firing line when the child decides they are still unhappy.

OP’s posts: |
BadgertheBodger Fri 26-Mar-21 12:16:26

There’s so much wrong with that I don’t even know where to start. Why the fuck are so many adults so desperate to push experimental drugs on children? It’s a total disgrace that this loophole has been introduced

BadgertheBodger Fri 26-Mar-21 12:17:22

Will we see children being taken into care if parental consent is withheld?

Wandawomble Fri 26-Mar-21 12:21:15

Being taken into care and then drugged and operated on.

OP’s posts: |
SirVixofVixHall Fri 26-Mar-21 12:24:03

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Advertisement

nauticant Fri 26-Mar-21 12:24:25

What if a child has two parents and they have opposing views?

Note that this confirms what was decided in the Bell decision: a child cannot consent to these interventions. The Bell decision is under appeal of course.

NancyDrawed Fri 26-Mar-21 12:24:33

The loving parents consenting on behalf their child are, thanks to Keira Bell's case, now doing so in the knowledge that the treatment they are agreeing to is experimental.

InsideNumberNine Fri 26-Mar-21 12:24:45

So gender questioning children with parents who wish to take a measured, "watchful waiting" approach to their treatment are disadvantaged? The reverse of which means that those children with adults who don't see an issue with this are at an advantage? An advantage of what? Considering PB's are shown to have negligible impact on mental health?

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:26:59

If the Tavistock don't appeal, then we will know that they are totally captured. I didn't know about this case so I wonder how strong it was. Will be interesting to read the case notes. The whole thing is a real mess

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:29:58

Interesting point nauticant but as no new evidence can be brought, what do the Goodlaw project intend to do during the appeal (weren't they allowed to intervene)? Will they use this win in order to strengthen KB's case?

nauticant Fri 26-Mar-21 12:30:39

Yes, it is a mess. You'll have medical practitioners now knowing they're being asked by parents to carry out experimental treatment on their children, which the children have not consented to, and realising that they don't know how many children will grow up and say that actually the treatment wasn't what they needed at all.

Some medical practitioners will cheerfully go ahead. Those are they ones who shouldn't be near children.

NecessaryScene1 Fri 26-Mar-21 12:31:43

Hmm, there are a lot of provisos in the judgment, to do with the experimental aspect. One bit of it hinges on the idea that the parents could understand the long-term consequences better than the child:

However, the key difference from Bell is that parents are, in general, in a position to understand and weigh up these matters and consider what is in the long and short term best interests of their child. They are adults with full capacity and as the people who know their child best, and care for them the most, will be in a position to reach a fully informed decision. The evidence strongly suggests that XY’s parents have fully considered these matters and come to a careful and informed decision.

To some extent they're relying on the Cass review sorting out the procedures - saying that they trust that to figure out what extra precautions are necessary:

It may well be that, given the particular issues involved, additional safeguards should be built into the clinical decision making, for example by a requirement for an independent second opinion. Any such requirement is a matter for the regulatory and oversight bodies and may be a matter considered by the Cass Review. My view is that this is likely to be a better safeguard for the very vulnerable children concerned rather than removing the ability in law of the parents giving consent. The clinical expert who gave the second opinion could then have a role in advising whether or not the particular case should be brought to Court.

They seem conscious of one of the issues mentioned above, but not really convinced they're taking it seriously enough given the actual institutional capture here.

My second particular concern is that of the pressure that may be placed by the children in issue upon their parents. Where a child has Gender Dysphoria and is convinced that s/he should be prescribed PBs, it is likely to be very hard for parents to refuse to consent. One does not have to be a child psychologist to appreciate the tensions that may arise within a family in this situation. I would describe this as “reverse pressure” and, although I have no evidence about it, it seems obvious that the problem could arise and the Second and Third Respondents are plainly alive to the issue.

The pressure on parents to give consent is something that all the clinicians concerned are likely to be fully alive to. Ms Morris submitted that GIDS was very much aware of the issue, and that considerable efforts were made to ensure that there was a family-based range of consultations and that parents saw clinicians in private as well as with their children. If the clinicians, or indeed any one of them, is concerned that the parents are being pressured to give consent, then I have no doubt such a case should be brought to Court.

Equally, if the clinicians consider the case to be finely balanced, or there is disagreement between the clinicians, then the case should be brought to Court. However, I do not consider that these issues justify a general rule that PBs should be placed in a special category by which parents are unable in law to give consent.

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:33:06

The Endocrinology company is not UK is it and hasn't it got very weak evidence

NancyDrawed Fri 26-Mar-21 12:33:38

Have I understood correctly that this case is regarding parental consent to continue PBs as opposed to starting a new course of treatment? See point copied below:

7. However, the Second and Third Respondents say that for those patients currently receiving treatment with PBs, as opposed to new patients, given that a stay has been granted in respect of [138] of Bell and the extreme distress these children and young persons would suffer if the treatment was not continued, treatment should continue on

MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN Approved Judgment

FD21P00063

the basis of parental consent alone as long as the patient continues to want the treatment. Therefore, the issue of the scope of parental consent and the role of the Court has become a live one.

nauticant Fri 26-Mar-21 12:35:58

The judgement is full of "hmm" moments:

12. XY came out to her parents as transgender when she was 10 years old in Year 5. According to AB, XY had always only been interested in girls’ toys and clothes. When at primary school she, for a period, tried to conform to a more “male” stereotype but she was utterly miserable, became very withdrawn, and was shy and unhappy, particularly at school.

13. She came out to her parents about being transgender after reading a book where one of the main characters was transgender. According to her mother, once she started going to school as a girl her confidence grew, and she became much happier. The parents first made contact with the GIDS Unit when XY was 10 years old. XY has now fully transitioned socially in all aspects of her life including legal paperwork. She changed her name by deed poll in 2016.

14. XY has never been diagnosed as having an unresolved mental health issue and there is no suggestion that she is on the Autistic Spectrum.

What happens when there's a question of autism? How complete is the parents' consent then? Does this mean there would need to be an additional step to test for this?

Some lawyers are going to be looking at this potential new area of law with £ signs in their eyes.

DisgustedofManchester Fri 26-Mar-21 12:43:00

nauticant

The judgement is full of "hmm" moments:

12. XY came out to her parents as transgender when she was 10 years old in Year 5. According to AB, XY had always only been interested in girls’ toys and clothes. When at primary school she, for a period, tried to conform to a more “male” stereotype but she was utterly miserable, became very withdrawn, and was shy and unhappy, particularly at school.

13. She came out to her parents about being transgender after reading a book where one of the main characters was transgender. According to her mother, once she started going to school as a girl her confidence grew, and she became much happier. The parents first made contact with the GIDS Unit when XY was 10 years old. XY has now fully transitioned socially in all aspects of her life including legal paperwork. She changed her name by deed poll in 2016.

14. XY has never been diagnosed as having an unresolved mental health issue and there is no suggestion that she is on the Autistic Spectrum.

What happens when there's a question of autism? How complete is the parents' consent then? Does this mean there would need to be an additional step to test for this?

Some lawyers are going to be looking at this potential new area of law with £ signs in their eyes.

Are you saying that a fully socialised person on the autistic spectrum is incapable of making decisions about themselves?

The facts are that very few young trans people are given blockers by the NHS and that at least ( I think ) 5 psychological interviews are undertaken before any aithorusation for prescription. Something Keira Bell also went through btw. She must have been a convincing 16/17 year old.

This is a good decision and now only leaves the ROGD believers to deal with in the courts. The issue, even under the current NHS only restrictions, is what happens when the ROGD believing parents lose in court still.

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:43:42

Goodlaw are getting onto the NHS straight away. Now thesee tactics of piling in and hoping they can define something before the law catches up need a bit of watchin.

I was also interested in his comment about the press 'not being interested because of KB. Does he hope to keep things quiet in case all the what if's come to light and it's not so clear cut.

He will also be looking to keep the money rolling in for cases

unwashedanddazed Fri 26-Mar-21 12:47:34

Reading the full text, I've never seen such emotionally manipulative language used to describe a legal decision. And that phrase 'loving parents' is nothing short of emotional blackmail for any parent unsure about this treatment.

If this was the great progressive win for children they hope to portray then this kind of propaganda would be unnecessary.

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:47:46

Are you saying that a fully socialised person on the autistic spectrum is incapable of making decisions about themselves? Yes disgusted my son is autistic and he would not understand the future scenarios. Autistic Children are not 'fully socialised'. Autistic children cannot grasp theory or future

highame Fri 26-Mar-21 12:49:13

He's plugging all the holes with a bit of fluff and waffle or perhaps a dead fox grin

nauticant Fri 26-Mar-21 12:50:38

Are you saying that a fully socialised person on the autistic spectrum is incapable of making decisions about themselves?

I quoted what the High Court judge wrote in her judgement. Take up your issues with her.

gardenbird48 Fri 26-Mar-21 12:51:00

However, the key difference from Bell is that parents are, in general, in a position to understand and weigh up these matters and consider what is in the long and short term best interests of their child. They are adults with full capacity and as the people who know their child best, and care for them the most, will be in a position to reach a fully informed decision. The evidence strongly suggests that XY’s parents have fully considered these matters and come to a careful and informed decision.

it is concerning the the judge considers XY's parents to be 'fully informed' enough to make a decision when the fact remains that that is impossible because adequate information doesn't exist because the extensive research hasn't been done and what limited amount has been done doesn't support the use of puberty blockers...

I wonder why the judge doesn't consider the reluctance of some GPs to prescribe the medication as a red flag?

28. The position as explained to me by Mr McKendrick, on behalf of the Third Respondent, is that some GPs, including XY’s, have agreed to continue prescribing PBs, but others have not. I was shown a number of letters from GPs who had declined to prescribe. Mr McKendrick said that his client would, before Bell, do the prescriptions themselves if the GP declined. However, it was not clear whether that would continue to happen post Bell. In any event, it is not wholly clear whose consent is being relied upon to make the administration of PBs lawful post Bell.

Hmm to this:
The defendant argues that PBs give the child “time to think”, that is, to decide whether or not to proceed to cross-sex hormones or to revert to development in the natal sex

I wish I could understand judgespeak better (and I haven't got time to read the full judgement) but bearing in mind JM's rather dysfunctional relationship with the truth does this judgement actually mean that he has succeeded? <clutching at straws frantically>

NecessaryScene1 Fri 26-Mar-21 12:54:25

I don't think the judgment is being generally published on an official site, so I assume that copy is just up as a Google doc via the Good Law project.

Here's a permanent archive of it for ongoing reference: archive.is/Q7JzH

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in