Tavistock Appeal Denied

For those asking about statutory regulation of Clinical Psychologists, it is not the BPS (which is a voluntary membership Professional Organisation) but the HCPC (Health and Care Professions Council):

www.hcpc-uk.org/concerns/

The HCPC deals with concerns about competence, fitness to practice, etc. It’s purpose is to ensure public protection.

You should be able to see the Times article on the archive link:
archive.vn/G3WXC

Is there a share token for that Times piece please?

Even with genuine life altering or life saving decisions that parents need to make for kids, there's a clear diagnostic criteria and treatment path. There's research underpinning it. Isn't it mental that nobody expects or asks for evidence when it comes to 'gender' treatments?

This shit needs dragged through courts via experts and doctors and properly reviewed research. ASAP. In detail.

Thanks for sharing Jacob’s story oldcrone. Can you imagine if as many of those style cases were reported, tv series made about them etc as the glamorized pieces? Like the approach the Swedish have taken. I suspect there would be a lot less demand for pbs.

It was very sad reading Jacob’s story. I would hope that they are getting the mental health support they need.

Is that really their angle? The consequences or implications of that becoming reality are terrifying.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-children-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-the-past-four-years-i-ve-been-stuck-as-a-child-5s6tkh7z2

archive.vn/G3WXC

No way should a parent be allowed to make these decisions for kids.

Excellent explanation @nachthexe

to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent.

And this..well surely it would make no difference given a large part of the reasoning that children cannot consent was that the effects are unknown, so even professionals are unlikely to understand them, so how would a parent be able to if noone else can? Therefor, parental consent argument out the window surely? Unless I am understanding this wrong anyway, law is really not my area..

and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision

Would love to know why on earth this line keeps being pushed, despite the judgement specifically saying it will not affect anything else. I would love to know the justification for outright lying in order to whip up a frenzy.

The very high concordance between patients who stay on PBs and who go on to CSH must surely be helpful here? If there is a 97% probability that (B) will follow (A), it seems reasonable that you have to understand (B) in order to consent to (A).

Yes, the original judges very carefully set out why they considered the child would need to know the implications of both treatments. If a child goes on to blockers nearly all progress to csh.

The Tavistocks own report confirms this to be true. Its a medical pathway, not separate treatments.

Urgh. Thank you for following this everyone. A child who already feels different for whatever reason is only going to have those feelings cemented if they are prescribed ‘pause’ medication that quite literally prevents them from developing normally alongside their peers. PBs are the tool that cements a feeling of difference into an actual physical and developmental reality.
PBs create trans adults by turning the thoughts of confused and traumatized children into reality (yes, you are different to your peers - these drugs made you so) and hampering their intellectual development such that CSH are seen as the ‘cure’. Of course 98% of children go on to take CSH. They have been carefully prepared to be completely physically and mentally isolated from their peers experiencing puberty. With CSH then sold as normalising, which child wouldn’t opt in?
It’s grotesque.

I really do hope it does go to appeal. This has to be unpicked to the last decimal place.

It's an interesting point about the need to understand future treatments. The very high concordance between patients who stay on PBs and who go on to CSH must surely be helpful here? If there is a 97% probability that (B) will follow (A), it seems reasonable that you have to understand (B) in order to consent to (A).

Kind of scary watching how much people can be corrupted by believing themselves to be righteous.

The 'right side of history' appears to be aligning with homophobes and paedophiles.

“All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

It's a Munchausen wet dream what they're saying. It is scary how the righteous cant see it..

The logic makes sense - Gillick was being applied correctly, so the only path to do what they want to do to children is to open up a whole new can of worms for which there is possibly no precedent.

They want a ruling that parents can subject a child to medical treatment for which

• there is no firm evidence of its benefits or harm
• the child is not capable of consent due to its long-term impact
• doctors are not prepared to perform purely on the basis of parental consent

And they want to be able to force doctors to do this. (The Tavistock said they could not conceive of treating a child without their consent.)

Kind of scary watching how much people can be corrupted by believing themselves to be righteous. It will be interesting.

The Tavistock will be invited – or sought to be compelled – to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent

Remind me, who is attempting to undermine Gillick?

"The intervention will be on behalf of a small group of NGOs who we will name in due course. The intention is to make points that were made inadequately or not at all before the Divisional Court around, in particular, (i) the need to hear what teenagers say about their own lives (ii) the role of parental consent and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision:"

They already had child witnesses on behalf of the Tavistock, and the things the kids said were beneficial to the other side. One child said that he hadn't really thought of the idea of dating and sex yet, and another said the idea of sex was disgusting. So they had better make sure the teen witnesses they get stay on script. As for the abortion issue, the court already emphasised repeatedly that this case was limited to the facts of treatment for gender dysphoria. It has no wider implications for abortion.

I think the idea about getting parental consent for this treatment is pretty scary, to be honest - especially when there is evidence that in some cases this is very much being pushed by parents.

Next he could try lying down in the street and kicking and screaming until he gets his way.

And here's the Advisory Group
twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1341788682488037384?s=19

C.N. Lester, Prof Alex Lester and Mridul Wadha among them!

Minutes from the Good Law Project.
Looks like they're trying to intervine in any appeal and to get theTavistock to allow parental consent.

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/
The intervention will be on behalf of a small group of NGOs who we will name in due course. The intention is to make points that were made inadequately or not at all before the Divisional Court around, in particular, (i) the need to hear what teenagers say about their own lives (ii) the role of parental consent and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision. The Advisory Group believes the decision was wrong and there is a reasonable basis for thinking it can be overturned.

The second commitment arises from the fact that, presently, the Tavistock does not accept that parents can consent to their children having puberty blockers. And the decision in the Bell case means that children cannot consent either. This leads to the situation where the consent of the Court – itself a huge barrier in practice – needs to be sought even in circumstances where a specialist doctor, parent, and child all agree that a treatment is in the child’s best interests.

The Tavistock will be invited – or sought to be compelled – to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent. In practice success on this action would remove, in many or most cases, the practical barrier to treatment posed by the Bell decision.