NEW: Grounds in support of intervention in the Bell v Tavistock JR appeal published

Theories in medicine are meaningless without data.

I know its different because it relates to an approval process, not a court decision, but this case makes me think of the German decision not to give the Oxford vaccine to over 65s.

Germany have made their decision because they believe current evidence doesn't show the vaccine to be effective, however as other countries will continue to use the vaccine that data will become available, and presumably their decision could change.

Regardless of what we think, the UK court decision does not prevent other countries from using PBs on young children, and if more data becomes available to prove that their decision was wrong, presumably they would change their decision (assuming the appeal is unsuccessful). However, for that to happen, there would need to be a will to collect data and allow research - and at the moment that seems to be a stumbling block.

If it's not sound then it shouldn't stand.

Agree.

In my experience as a lawyer, courts tend, if in doubt, to let a party intervene.

As someone said, much better to give them the chance to put forward their arguments than for them to be able to say they were wrongly denied that opportunity.

They can put forward no new evidence, they can not make oral submissions. All they can do is repeat their tired old arguments in writing (without putting forward evidence).

So what are they, in reality, are they going to say? They will make the usual bald assertions without any evidence base: which is the key point about this whole litigation.

Theories in medicine are meaningless without data.

I remain very hopeful.

If there's been an error in law and the appeal can prove it, then it should be proved. There is no point at all in trying to verify proper, ethical standards for children's care in law if it's based on faulty law. And that is what the appeal is about, isn't it? Not fresh evidence, but that the judges in the initial case did something wrong and their judgement is not sound.

If it's not sound then it shouldn't stand.

A 12 year old making decisions with huge, irreversible, impact on the rest of tbeir lives. Of course they cannot understand how they may feel about an impaired sex life or inability to have children of their own.

The judges' decision was that a child aged under 16 couldn't understand such adult concepts, because they have no experience of such things, and also lack the mental and physical maturity to imagine the impact of the effects of hormonal treatments on this aspect of their lives.

I'm looking forward to the interventions of those who believe that children do have a full, mature and adult understanding of these things. Not least because where that leads to is ... interesting.

Paragraphs 85-86 of the judgement is a testimony from a 20 year old year old FtM TM who was prescribed PBs at 12 years old. Decided not to have egg preservation.

"We discussed sex and I told them the idea of it disgusted me. I knew I would be unable to consider having a sexual relationship as an adult with my body so wrongly formed"

This is heartbreaking. A 12 year old making decisions with huge, irreversible, impact on the rest of tbeir lives. Of course they cannot understand how they may feel about an impaired sex life or inability to have children of their own.

They're a 12 year old child.

Hard to imagine why BMA would want to intervene.
It would be quite weird and frankly arrogant for a doctors' trade union to demand that GIDs should continue to prescribe Triptorelin off-label to kids when the original JR included statements from international experts, so perhaps they are not as captured as they seem?

I am not going to be too positive at this stage. You can never tell what will happen and I would be very suspect of anyone telling me the case was already won. Look how cautious Keira's supporters were after the trial, even though, when we read the evidence we were staggered at the poor quality from Tavi

It's looking more and more to me that the (only?) way to defeat this gender-woo bullshit is in our courts.

Each court case that comes along fills me with hope.

Sunlight sunlight sunlight. Let them have their say. Let it be detoxified.

Yes, I agree nauticant, that's my thought too. They look like they're letting lots of interested parties have their say for a reason.

Out of all the interveners I don't really understand why an American org was granted intervention? Surely being a foreign org with conflicting interests to the UK medical model should be grounds for refusal.

None of the new interveners will be allowed to make oral submissions nor submit any fresh evidence. The court made the point that all of these parties could have sought permission to intervene in the original case, and that this was an appeal – not a fresh hearing.

My positive take on this is that the Court of Appeal might be being very permissive in relation to the requests of those against the decision so as to completely remove any scope they might have for a further appeal to the Supreme Court. It's not the door re-opening, it's the door being cleared of obstructions so it can be firmly closed.

The Endocrine Society is an American organisation. In their news letter below they make a big deal of puberty blockers being 'completely reversible' and don't mention the effects on bone growth and psychological function. All of this already debunked in the original case - blockers are stage 1 of a pathway leading to cross sex hormones and surgery. And the Tavistocks own research confirms. They'll have to come up with more than this.

endocrinenews.endocrine.org/endocrine-society-partners-to-intervene-in-u-k-transgender-medicine-court-appeal/

Bet they have some pretty big name Judges but they already had because, methinks, everyone knew this would happen. Smart some of these legal folk

Thank you, really helpful. It sadly sounds less fun than interpretive dance, but I do understand now how it will probably work.

I asked the role of intervention if they cannot give new evidence. This is what @Lady Justice said:-

"So typically it means a word limited written submission. Aim is to assist the court and be to the point. Will be like their app to intervene. Evidence already in the case so they can quote from that etc. But nothing new, to make sure case gets closure (final hearing in April)."

Also, one of the failings of the Tavistock was its inability to stand up to pressure from outside sources, so difficult to see how more pressure from those outside sources will improve things.

A reminder that Keira and her lawyers will still need considerable digging to challenge all these interventions by deep pocketed orgs.

Sorry - is the lack of better evidence.

The problem with the ‘blame the Tavistock’ argument isn’t the lack of better evidence from alternative sources.

Looks like some are happy to throw the Tavistock under the bus if they get the puberty blockers part overturned

twitter.com/johnhalton/status/1355128249844723714?s=21

I'm not going there defaultname, but I would love to imagine this all being communicated in the form of dance.

@merrymouse

Mime - can they use mine?

Give us a clue!