Tavistock Appeal Denied

Who tried to submit the same witness twice but under different initials? What a daft blunder!

If I understand Maughams rantings properly (which I may not, as hes not to understandable these days) he claimed said child did not get a voice at all. Rather than admit that the child was refused to give evidence twice. But their evidence was indeed heard, just not twice, understandably! Also claimed 'no trans voices were heard' at all

say what I eat?!

meant.

Really worth reading, especially the comment on gillick, and the comments on mermaids & stonewall applications to intervene.

Yeah stonewall and mermaids (unsurprisingly) do not come out of this well at all.

I imagine their 'evidence' was along the lines of..'but if we do not ignore medical ethics and give these children exactly what they say they want (often after being coached on the internet ) then loads of transkids will kill themselves'. Or 'but you can't let TT or any other groups besides us intervene, as they are all just hateful people!'. Suicide was almost certainly the main argument though,and certainly would not fly in court, nor should it be constantly repeated. I know I repeated it here though, but I couldn't say what I eat without doing so..

There seems to be so much anger, with the fact that courts deal in facts and evidence, rather than hurt feelings, sulking, abuse, accusations, emotional manipulation and fudging though.

However, although it looks like a missed opportunity I can't help but think that the Tavistock didn't want to create an evidence base because they suspected it would tell a story that would go against their activities.

I have found myself leaning a little towards..they purposely presented a shitty case so the could hold their hands up and say it wasn't their fault (bt still get t end the experiements), it was the nasty judges, when TRAs start circing like sharks.

And yes, appealing against a ruling that safeguards kids and puts trans peoples medication on the same level as other meds (ie. safe. Understood effects. Proof it helps. Etc) is a horrific look.

Sorry, haven't read the full thread but wanted to say this while it's clear in my mind.

As I understand it, the Tavistock has experimentally provided a drug to just-pre- and adolescent people.

This drug has been shown, by data which the Tavistock has collected, to reduce the bone-density of those who take it from the normal for that stage of development.

There is little doubt that reduced bone density in adolescence is directly related to such things as osteoporosis in later life.

Yet this is not a reason immediately to pause the experimental use of this drug in adolescents, as opposed to in the prematurely pubertal children for whom it was designed, until the matter has been fully investigated? Why the fuck not?

I cannot help remembering that recently, when a single individual out of a cohort of 30,000 being given an experimental vaccine suffered what might possibly have been an adverse reaction to that vaccine, that trial was immediately paused for full investigation in spite of the desperate need of millions of people for a working vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Why the double standards?

The absolute digging in of the heels over this is astounding. At no point has there been an acknowledgement of the need to look at practice and assurances that they are working within X guidelines (even if they are disagreed with). Instead it is fingers in ears and everyone is so mean.

Ground 4. The Divisional Court has not improperly restricted the decision in Gillick. It has sought to apply the requirements of Gillick to the treatment in the present case.

Bloody good to see this in such plain writing, though we knew it was true anyway. They will still misrepresent it though. Like Jolyon and his constant 'no transkids were included!!!' despite proof they were.

Maugham is also saying the Tavistock are appealing. A QC should be more accurate

It seems that all that has happened is that the Tavistock may have applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal (previous attempt in High Court was unsuccessful). The deadline for this new attempt to get an appeal hearing was today. It'll be a while before the CoA even decides whether to hear an appeal. That's a very long way from 'The Tavistock is appealing' and makes the BBC article seriously misleading.

They're asking the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal, but has the CoA said it will?

What happens if they get their arse handed to them again if they go to an appeal? Is that over then?

Astonishingly JM is "pleased to confirm" they're appealing, presumably because his GLP funds are now being thrown at the appeal so he's on the inside now He is way too invested.

[quote iguanadonna]Why is the BBC claiming that the Tavistock is appealing? Appeal was denied by High Court

www.bbc.com/news/education-55369784[/quote]
They are appealing directly to the court of appeal

Why is the BBC claiming that the Tavistock is appealing? Appeal was denied by High Court

www.bbc.com/news/education-55369784

TartrazineCustard

This explains what they did:

users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

I forgot that NotBadConsidering.

The comments upthread about the length of time that would be needed for the Tavi to put together that peer-reviewed study have resonated with me.

I joined a medical trial last year (something where patients need to have an uncommon pre-existing condition to qualify for treatment, so we're hard to recruit). The professor running the trial is a medical doctor with a full NHS medical research framework behind him and an international reputation in his field. When I joined the trial, it was made very clear to me that his study comprised of a control group (qualifying patients who'd joined the trial, but elected to take NO treatment), patients who'd decided to follow a traditional treatment course (already passed medical trials years ago), and then finally a group that was taking the experimental treatment course. We will be tracked for decades, as the outcomes will be life long.

If I apply that model to the Tavi, then they would have had to have tracked patients who would have qualified for puberty blockers but decided not to proceed with them, taken them but then decided not to go on to cross sex hormones (the "it's just a pause" hypothesis), and then finally the group that kept going on the full medical transition path. They would need sufficient numbers in each group and they'd need to be keeping an eye on the long term benefits intended by each path.

If what we've been hearing is the whole story, haven't they basically said that ALL of their qualifying patients opted for blockers, and then nearly all of them went on to cross sex hormones? And then that they're not following up with any of them longitudinally?

If that's the case, then that doesn't sound like much of a study. At least, they didn't set out to gather evidence on the effectiveness of puberty blockers being used for the purposes they were prescribing them for.

That's what the trans lobby are arguing, that the Tavi deliberately failed to provide evidence and deliberately lost.

I'm not sure that that is the case. I do think there was a clear failure by management to scrutinise the service they provided. I think they were so well and truly captured that they were convinced they were providing the right care for the children.

We know that there were some frontline staff who were deeply worried and raised concerns but again management were probably dismissive of their views because of capture. The Newsnight feature talked about other staff who were accusing the ones who raised concerns as transphobic.

In short, management massively failed their staff and failed their patients.

She’s not a doctor, she’s a clinical psychologist, so who would that be? BPS?

I think it would be covered by NHS vicarious liability.
It occurs to me, though, has anyone reported Polly Carmichael to the GMC?
In the light of the court case this needs doing I think.

I don’t think there would be personal liability. I think the NHS could be sued, but not sure individuals would be accountable. Maybe someone legal might know.

The alternative was to carry on ending up in an even worse mess of something looking like a Ponzi scheme built on the ruined lives of children.

I bet some staff are relieved, but hasn't losing opened them up to being sued into the ground though? Would they do that deliberately?

This is exactly how I see it. With the addition that the Tavistock didn't have data because they knew that if they'd gathered and processed it this would have left them in even more of a mess. They were hoping that being perceived as being on the right side of history (they might not even have believed it themselves) would see them through.

I think the Tavistock were desperate to have someone take the problem out of their hands.

Thanks Fleegle. I do not believe history will be kind to civil liberties & human rights organisations currently arguing that children under 16 can give informed consent to lifelong medicalisation and infertility.