Mail on Sunday article showing testimony from Keira's case

Now in the New Yorker.

I am not sure non subscribers can read. Pretty good given it is an American news source, quoting both the Observer and the Economist, as well as mentioning Abigail Shrier and JKR, and suggesting that gender may be more fluid than some people recognise and that regret might always be possible, at any age.

www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/we-need-to-change-the-terms-of-the-debate-on-trans-kids?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_011321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bea0b6e2ddf9c72dc8cfc7e&cndid=49377309&hasha=8d5dbaaa57a507e2bd96366c07a28287&hashb=b315dcfb6225afc4d22eafc5ad9c5adb34a82917&hashc=a539211f009bddf78bac720dc44d522d67422f96753993dccfbd07630bf8a597&esrc=AUTO_OTHER&utm_term=TNY_Daily

The side effects on pbs are listed as ‘very common’ and it reads like they are to be endured rather than an indication to stop treatment.

For triptorelin, which seems to be the drug commonly used to block puberty in gender dysphoric teens in the UK, the only side effects listed as 'common or very common' are depression and 'mood altered'.

bnfc.nice.org.uk/drug/triptorelin.html#sideEffects

Since the main symptom of gender dysphoria is mental distress (as there are no physical symptoms), it seems unwise to treat this with a drug which has depression as a common side effect.

These are pretty heavy duty drugs. Common side effects reported for one of the three brands of pbs listed:

Asthma; body hair change; breast abnormalities; depression; headache; hypersensitivity; mood altered; ovarian cyst; paraesthesia; skin reactions; vaginal haemorrhage; visual impairment; weight change; withdrawal bleed

Quite frequently when this gets raised elsewhere, concerns are dismissed and it is pointed out that all commonly used drugs have potential side effects that sound serious and we would never take any medication if we constantly panicked about side effects.

To check this I had a look at a box of paracetamol. This is one of the household medicines that requires extra caution as the consequences of even a small overdose can be fatal so I thought that would be a good comparison.

The leaflet points out that side effects are rare and asks that all possible side effects are reported straightaway and the patient stops taking it immediately. There is the possibility of allergic reaction, irritated skin, blood changes resulting in unexpected bruises or bleeding, breathing problems.

The side effects on pbs are listed as ‘very common’ and it reads like they are to be endured rather than an indication to stop treatment.

Logic would suggest that the condition they are intended to prevent is far worse than even the side effects and there is no possible alternative but we know that that is not true.

We know that doing nothing is a very good alternative for approx 80% of children so as we’ve said before the diagnosis becomes absolutely key. However we know that diagnosis is not being treated with any the required seriousness with GIDS especially with the private prescribers despite their claims.

www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2020/release140-2020.cfm

Forgot to add. It appears the medical procedures are no longer viewed as cosmetic and are now seen as correcting abnormalities. What kind of crazy adult do you have to be to think that's ok

precocious puberty is only a short term need, so one would think serious questions need to be asked.

Off subject sort of but I read yesterday that California State now required medical Insurers to insure for trans procedures. Big train coming down that track

"It is unclear at present how stored testicular tissue would be used to restore fertility: this has not been achieved yet."

We'll, quite. This definition of 'experimental' would also encompass freezing your head in liquid nitrogen in the hope that future technology allows you to thaw it out and live forever.

The ''treatment'' doesn't magically stop being experimental with no full understanding of future side effects just because the parent says 'yes'. Why should they be allowed to inflict infertility and loss of sexual function on their children for no good medical reason?

And when the Tavistock whistleblowers said that they believed homophobia and (in one case) paedophilia were behind the motivation of some parents who 'supported' their children who wanted to transition...

Times article - It feels like conversion therapy for gay children, say clinicians

Am I right in thinking that there should be some sort of approval process from NICE to use the drugs for a different purpose?

I’m sure I’ve read articles about people not getting certain new cancer treatments in time because NICE hasn’t approved the cost/benefit yet. Am I missing something?

Have GIDS gone off piste here?

The other thing I don’t understand is that presumably NICE has to have approved the use and financing of these drugs for this purpose.

This is the NICE page for the drug used in the UK as a puberty blocker.

bnfc.nice.org.uk/drug/triptorelin.html#indicationsAndDoses

For children, NICE have only approved it for the treatment of precocious puberty.

me too, need to feel as though I'm making some sort of noise

Better do some work now though and check the kids are doing their schoolwork:-)

This is why I wonder if QC Jolyon hasn't had his fingers in this particular pie. It seems to be a stupid action if it goes ahead

You've seen this thread? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4114605-Jolyon-Maugham-GLP-and-scary-stuff-re-parental-consent?pg=1

Well worth a read....

Letter writing is my way forward

How is it possible that we, as individuals, have to fund this legal action whilst our opponents have the bottomless pit of the state behind them?
Who makes these funding decisions? Can't the NHS override individual trusts or do they have total discretion? Surely the Health Secretary can intervene if they don't want to underwrite this legal action? Seems insane.

This is the thing isn't it. The Court of Protection will ensure that the child safeguarding is paramount. This 'potential' use of family court to bypass the court of protection means that a child without the capability will be given drugs without the scrutiny of the rigorous court of protection because the parent says so. When you read the release of the court papers by the Mail, it is difficult to see how any organisation would think it ok to pursue this .

I don't think NICE have been nobbled. I actually think this hasn't been properly thought through and NICE would have a role to play wouldn't they? This is why I wonder if QC Jolyon hasn't had his fingers in this particular pie. It seems to be a stupid action if it goes ahead

I still don’t understand how there can be any informed consent where the information required for the ‘informed’ doesn’t exist.

It's bugging me too. The ''treatment'' doesn't magically stop being experimental with no full understanding of future side effects just because the parent says 'yes'. Why should they be allowed to inflict infertility and loss of sexual function on their children for no good medical reason? Really troubling.

Absolutely Highame - why would one taxpayer funded organisation not have to accept the ruling of another? Maybe it is a good thing though if this is tested to destruction (we would want to be able to challenge further if it had gone the other way) but worrying if the family court has a lower threshold for under and consent - they do seem to be rather opaque.

I don’t really understand what they mean by this though:
declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent

Does it mean that the family court could rule that consent can be given by the parent where the child cannot? I still don’t understand how there can be any informed consent where the information required for the ‘informed’ doesn’t exist.

The other thing I don’t understand is that presumably NICE has to have approved the use and financing of these drugs for this purpose.

They are usually very strict - we hear of sad stories where cancer patients can’t access treatment and die because it hasn’t been FULLY tested or FULLY approved through NICEs rather slow process and certainly people have had all sorts of trouble getting them to agree that the benefits of the drugs are worth the cost (I’m sure I’ve heard of people dying or having to fundraise when this happens).

So I wonder what has happened here? How have the doctors obtained permission to use these drugs for this purpose? Have NICE been knobbled?

My lawyers have also been informed by the UCLH Trust and Leeds Hospital that they are considering applying to the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent.

Am finding this really difficult to come to terms with. All sorts of thoughts going through my head. How can publicly funded bodies feel they have the right to use taxpayers money (and when the NHS is constantly bleating about lack of funds) to pursue something against another publicly funded body (the Law) which is in effect what it would be. I am utterly gobsmacked that our Health Service now feels it has the power to become a campaigner. Someone put me straight.

I am going to be writing to Matt Hancock and Sir Simon Stephens and anyone else I can find. Surely this hasn't happened before? If it hasn't happened before, wouldn't this be a rather dangerous precedent. It would mean that public bodies could just apply to a family court if they didn't like a particular judgement. Would think Jolyon QC may have a hand in this?

Very confusing???

With regards to adult males fertilising female children's eggs......theoretically, couldn't the man decide to 'have' the baby (via surrogate) thus making a child, a mother?
How would a situation like this be handled? If children can't consent to sex, surely they don't get parental rights to refuse the embryo being 'used'?

[quote Igneococcus]There is a thread on it Malahaha but here is a sharetoken (I like to make the most of my subscription):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6a2ab6b2-529f-11eb-b5cf-1d37166171d9?shareToken=ff1485cdd7341caad38ae21d33b8e388[/quote]
Thanks @Igneococcus

Latest from Keira which refers to Family Courtd:

"
Update on Protect gender dysphoric children from experimental treatment

Hi everyone,

Again thank you all for your generous donations. We hit the initial target in two days! I know how important this case is for all of us. Earlier in the week on Wednesday 6th Jan my lawyers lodged papers with the Court of Appeal against the Tavistocks request of an appeal. We await the Court of Appeals decision.

My lawyers have also been informed by the UCLH Trust and Leeds Hospital that they are considering applying to the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent. We have asked that we are notified if they make any application so we can intervene in the proceedings. We are very concerned that this could undermine the protective role of the Court by continuing to expose children to experimental and harmful medical treatment. It is alarming that the Hospitals would be actively considering a way to avoid scrutiny by the Court.

I will be back with updates once I hear."

Family courts are lower courts, they would have to abide by the rulings of the higher court. If a family applied to the court to enable their child to take puberty blocks and cross sex hormones, the local authority would have to intervene in protection of the child. At least I think that's how it would work but given that Family court priority is protection of the child, it is unlikely a case would succeed given KB case