Tavistock Appeal Denied

Ah, InvisibleDragon answered my question in their last paragraph.

Just wanted to comment on this:

^the Tavistock initiated in 2011, but that hadn't completed the peer review process and so wasn't ready.
You'd have thought, wouldn't you, that the Tavistock, knowing this case was pending, would have pulled out all the stops to get it completed in time?^

I know the judgement was quite incredulous ability how long this study is taking, but I'm actually sympathetic to the Tavistock on this point.

In the judgement, the study is described like this:

Until 2011 PBs were only available at GIDS for those aged 16 or older. In 2011 PBs started to be prescribed for those aged 12-15 and in mid-puberty. This was first done between 2011-14 at University College London Hospital (UCLH) under an approved research study known as the Early Intervention Study. The Study took an uncontrolled treatment cohort of 12-15 year olds with established and persistent GD in England. The Study recruited children for 3 years, but there was then a period until February 2019 when the last cohort member began the next stage of therapy (cross-sex hormones).

It makes sense that getting the data is really slow. It took them 3 years to recruit enough participants. They then have to wait up to 4 years per participant to get outcome data about progression to cross sex hormones. That meant that they didn't have all the date ready to analyse until February 2019.

It is reasonable to assume say 6 months of data analysis and paper writing, then at least another 4 - 6 months of revisions. More if the paper was rejected from the first journal they chose and had to be completely reformatted for submission to a different one. Academic publishing moves at a glacial pace, even when not in a pandemic.

So the fact that the study is not published yet is not surprising to me.

What is surprising is that they wouldn't submit either the draft or some of the raw data for the court to see.

It's really worth reading the judgement in full. About 40 pages and reasonably straightforward. And it's clear that most of the Twitterers objecting to it haven't taken the trouble to look.

From Transgender Trend July 2019:

Follow-up piece by Michael Biggs who has found more worrying evidence on the Tavistock experiment with puberty blockers

www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers-update/

Sorry I'm not suggesting a cover up, more that the evidence collected by the Tavistock is not showing particularly positive outcomes for their treatment and so perhaps the lawyers decided it wouldn't really help the case? I.e. it was a strategic legal decision rather than a lack of data collection/pure incompetence.

The judgement refers to some research that, if I remember correctly, the Tavistock initiated in 2011, but that hadn't completed the peer review process and so wasn't ready.
You'd have thought, wouldn't you, that the Tavistock, knowing this case was pending, would have pulled out all the stops to get it completed in time?

Like a cover up?

Can someone remind me. Wasn't it Michael Biggs who analysed research by the Tavistock (?) and found that, contrary to the conclusions of their study, the data was showing that suicide ideation was actually increasing post-treatment? This was a couple of years ago so I'm struggling to remember the details.

If that's the kind of evidence base the Tavistock are sitting on then I'm not surprised it wasn't put before the judges. I wonder if the lack of evidence put forward was less to do with incompetence and more because it would be hurting their case rather than helping it?

An appeal isn't a retrial.

Regarding future law suits. I remember speaking five years ago with a senior relevant person in this area who said what will blow this open will be the current children being treated in these clinics growing up and suing the crap out of those who treated and enabled this practice. That is exactly what this JR decision has enabled and everyone involved must be shitting themselves.

That rejection sounds very stern, doesn't it?

"You've misunderstood the judgement here."
"Precocious puberty is irrelevant here."
"You're very wrong about Gillick."
"Mermaids and Stonewall had the same chance as other parties and they blew it."

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

That's my understanding Floisme I don't think new evidence can be submitted as part of asking for an appeal. Just a critique of how you believe the law was applied incorrectly in the original judgement.

Not my area of expertise but my understanding is that they have to come up with legal arguments as to why the judgement on the evidence that was presented was wrong; which suggests to me that it might be a bit too late for the Tavistock to find some new data down the back of the sofa. But do correct me if that's wrong.

I am afraid to say that the Court of Appeal will almost certainly grant them the right to appeal and I'd expect them to have cobbled together some evidence by then. How believable that will be remains to be seen.

It's always been said on here that once these children reach adulthood and fully appreciate the extent of their surgeries, infertility, life long medication requirements and complexity of relationships, some of them will be enraged that they made these decisions before they were able to fully understand the implications. So this judgement will be critical for them.

Personally I feel that any sunlight is good.

I would still like to see exactly how one can make a 10-year-old understand what an orgasm is, and appreciate what adult sterility feels like. What words would one would use to describe it to them, and what possible words could they use to convince anyone they understand.

Jazz Jennings was told an orgasm was like a sneeze. No wonder they thought they weren't missing out.

It would be inappropriate to fully explain an orgasm to a 10-year-old, surely.

So for me, even if an appeal is granted, the lid is off now. Debating, opining, columns, articles, discussions, phone ins, they can all happen unrestricted.

That's interesting that there were 3 judges. I wonder whether they are bracing themselves for an enquiry. there are parallels with mesh implants - a lack of research, issues from big pharma nd a lack of actually listening to the patient group added to the pressures of waiting lists and the desire to help.

Therefore if consent was not obtained properly, surely this does leave the door open for future litigation?

Datun, I wouldn't think the same judge would sit on the appeal. At the very least, they wouldn't want to give any grounds for appeal on that score. But I don't know.
I thought very significant that there was a heavyweight bench for this one. They knew the complexity of the law and the importance of it, the public interest and the implications for children and young people, for parents, for the NHS and medical profession and they were careful not to challenge Gillick principles and to take account of the Article 8 rights as well. They kept well away from the status and regulation of puberty blockers themselves and confined themselves to consent but even so, other legal cases could follow on from this. There are straws in the wind already. And it has been assumed by some commentators that there will be an appeal.

If it does go to appeal and Keira et al are not able to raise the money to fight the appeal, will that mean business as usual for the Tavistock?

Thanks for the explanations I meant!

If they affirm it as not correct I will be most interested to hear why.

Interesting that one of the judges sitting was from the court of appeal, considering the conclusions they came to.

Requesting the court of appeal is a democratic right, and a well made judgement should stand up to it if it is correct. If the court of appeal affirm the judgement as correct, then that sets it as a stronger ruling and precedent.