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

I'm pretty certain Gillick competence doesn't work like that. A minor who consented to an abortion, and then when she was grown up regretted it, wouldn't alter the competence to have consented.

And didn't the judges read the testimony of 70 children, not just one. Isn't that right? Transgendertrend, I believe, provided the testimony of dozens.

OldCrone -

We can quibble about ages but, our voices will be heard. There is little misunderstanding. We struggled, we were offered help, we took it and we now live happier lives. For many of us, our sexual function is wonderful, not that it's any of your business. Personally, I'm always disappointed that GC's are so hooked up on my capability to achieve orgasm. Perhpaps you guys need help.

As for dozens of happy adults, I imagine it would prove that the decisions we made at the time, in company with our parents, the Dr's and the Endo's in the main with the odd exception have been beneficial.

Of course, the court has so far only heard from one of us. Maybe you guys will be able to genuinely advise those who have had a positive experience where our experience is all wrong?

Leaving aside the subject matter of the case, isn’t there something very, very dodgy about a US organisation trying to influence U.K. medical law, specifically re: NHS funded drug prescriptions?

Perhaps the appeal might be able to call trans people in their late 20's and early 30's who were the early days patients to receive blockers.

They wouldn't be that old, would they? The Tavistock only started their experimental treatment on under 16s in 2010.

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

But you seem to have misunderstood what the judicial review was about. It was about the ability of children to consent to treatment which would have a profound effect on their sexual function and fertility as adults.

You could present dozens of 'happy adults who transitioned as children', but this wouldn't prove that children could give informed consent to treatment at an age when they are too young and immature to have the capacity to fully understand all the effects of that treatment.

Perhaps the appeal might be able to call trans people in their late 20's and early 30's who were the early days patients to receive blockers. It'd be such a shame if their voices were ignored as much as their birth genitalia.

Reading the CQC report on the Tavistock endocrine clinics it seems that the endocrinologists insist on the consent of the child's parent/guardian as well as the consent of the child.

If the endocrinologists thought the child had the capability to independently consent why would that be necessary? A parent is not asked to give consent before a Gillick competent minor can access contraception or have an abortion.

Presumably this why at was stated at the JR that it is the parent who is liable in the case of regret and not the endocrinologist.

I have said this before, but if they are so absolutely certain that PB and then CSH are the right path then surely having to go to court to gain the consent for this shouldn't be an issue. No one is depriving children of healthcare (or whatever is claimed in tweets) just ensuring that the treatment is the correct one.

Why would people be against this?

Sorry, useless image. It’s 16, subsection 4: The effects of PBs

I may be misremembering, but I think it was some British endocrinologists who did the whistleblowing on the Webberleys.

Re the quoted passage in the attached image: the Tavistock cannot give this evidence, neither can any other clinic. All of them decided that the gold standard experimental model, with a randomised control group (so split all suitable patients into two randomised groups, one on PBs, the other using watchful waiting with psychological support) was unethical.

The evidence for that stance is as dubious as all the rest, and I’d be very suspicious that they didn’t want to make that comparison as there’s a strong likelihood it would demonstrate that PBs don’t help.

I looked up the British organisation. Their twitter is soc_endo and they have never tweeted about trans health care as far as I could find, and there is hardly anything about it on their web site. It's like they are keeping out of it, online at least

I imagine that there could be a potential conflict of interest between the 2 groups of clinicians (endocrinologists and GIDS clinicians) especially if they are both saying that it is the other ones who should have been gaining the consent of the child. Also it is likely that some of the prescribing endocrinologists were members of the UK Society for Endocrinology and this could mean that if they supported the idea that it is the endocrinologists who should have been gaining consent and they haven't in practice been doing this then they would potentially be going against their own member's interests.

I agree with pp who was surprised that these orgs can follow the logic from this to consent regarding abortion, but don't follow the logic that there are unintended consequences to agreeing that children in general can't consent to something, but actually these specific children can consent, because they have a special understanding.

It reads like it's influence by activist parents - they need this to be true. My child can consent to this because they have a special insight. It hasn't been done to them without consent. It's only a theoretical possibility that a child would make a mistake.

The endocrine society that is one of the intervening parties is American (as maya Forstater says in her twitter thread). I looked up the British organisation. Their twitter is soc_endo and they have never tweeted about trans health care as far as I could find, and there is hardly anything about it on their web site. It's like they are keeping out of it, online at least. Jolyan went to an American based organisation instead.

It seems like the argument is based on some sort of Schrödinger's child - simultaneously so fragile they will attempt suicide and so emotionally sophisticated they can consent to experimental medical procedures that a normal child could not understand.

I'd love to hear from the UK endocrinologists who have been prescribing puberty blockers. I wonder if they have been prescribing on the basis that the consent process has already been carried out?

And also tried to remove sex as a protected characteristic. What next, sexual orientation?

Give it a year and they'll be campaigning to rename it "gender orientation".

I have to say, I did wonder if whose responsibility it is to assess and undertake the capacity work would muddy the waters. We have GIDS who diagnose the gender dysphoria and the endos prescribing and carrying out the treatment. The CQC review of the capacity/consent assessments for the endo clinic was good, GIDS not so much (as in not so much bothered about doing them). Capacity assessments are undertaken by the professional who is responsible for making the decision with the person, in my line of work I have a limited remit as to which decisions I assess capacity on because some aspects are outside of my jurisdiction. Things can overlap and get messy at times, which is where joint working comes into play. I'll be interested to see how this aspect plays out.

I have to say, I see some dreadful consent/capacity work take place. I'm not surprised we're seeing nonsense about the threat to gillick competence being bandied around, the level of understanding around these things is pretty dire. I spend a lot of time educating other professionals on how to undertake consent work and it is excruciating. I find Doctors and psychiatrists the worst - Disclaimer, only my personal experience.

Traditionally, if a young lesbian took part in a legal case alleging that a clinic had failed in its medical and safeguarding responsibilities and gone on to give her (and other young women like her) inappropriate treatment, Stonewall would be on her side.

Which other medical area would accept the current level of misdiagnosis of a condition IN CHILDREN with no corrective action or even acknowledgement of the issue?

Afaik they don't even offer to support the detransitioners - they just get ostracised and abused by their former 'rainbow family'. I can't believe what a toll that must take on these young people.

(sorry, just 'Keira' but maybe she should have a definite article for being such a brave person)

Yet again, ignoring the Keira's actual experience!

Para 16.3 says the scenario of a child making a short term decision which they later regret is "theoretically possible", as if it isn't the basis for the entire case!

WTAF

Especially since the CQC report mentions that some GIDS kids don’t verbally communicate.

Does anyone know if the CQC report be allowed as new evidence?

I suppose this is the first time that any authority has ever said no to this ideology. To date organisations just capitulate to all demands - not matter how extreme. It's good that it's the safety and wellbeing of children who initiated the first no .
And as for Stonewall being involved - let's just remind ourselves how Stonewall demonstrated their approach to safeguarding children when they appointed an individual to their Trans advisory group (that advised schools) who was the subject of a damning report about safeguarding. Any other institution making that appointment would have been barred from working with schools.