Keira Bell and Mrs A vs. Tavistock - Court of Appeal hearing 23 & 24 June 2021

Ref to Helen Webberley's practice.

I think the government (much as though it complained about JR's around the time of Brexit) is very pleased they are alive and well. Many of these controversial issues can be argued in the court and then in the court of public opinion to see which way the wind is blowing

Oooh Gender GP getting an airing

Agree @nauticant, it's a whole bunch of red flags.

@FloraFox you said eloquently what I was trying to say!

And Allsorts in turn deny they are influencing the kids, they refer them on to the "experts" who are GIDS.

At every point, it's a conveyor belt, with the children being chivvied along, with no adults taking any responsibility for leading them down this path at any point.

And now, it looks like the fucking judges are trying to wriggle out of making a decision on this and looking for a technical loop hole.

Fuckery.

I really feel for Keira right now.

But what actually ia the point of puberty blockers?

This is my controversial view, but after years of reading I'd decided they have an hidden purpose of firmly embedding gender dysphoria into a child.

McKendrick's argument that the consent decisions should not be collapsed to the earliest point overlooks the issue that if a child takes PBs, they will not be in any better position to make a decision about loss of sexual function if they wait a few years. They won't have experienced sexual function at the later date.

How can an 16 year old who has not experienced sexual arousal make a decision about never experiencing it any better than a 10 year old?

Another thing that could flow from a successful appeal is that once the court has said "this isn't a matter for us because it relates to potentially wrong but lawful behaviour by the Tavistock", then the government, which naturally will be watching closely, will be wondering whether it needs to legislate. I would expect it not to act because, before, this issue was incendiary but now it's nuclear.

sorry puberty

But what actually ia the point of puberty blockers?

We're told it's a pause button and biys time for the child to think about what they want. BUT if you block puberty, you aren't just stopping physical maturation you're stopping their cognitive maturation, too.

So don't you just end up with a developmentally delayed child who is a bit older, rather than a child with the necessary mental capacity...?

How can he say that puberty blockers are reversible. If you should have entered pubity at 13 and it is delayed until 16 how do you know there aren't any irreversible consequences. Did they produce evidence? Is it it the bundle?

Whenever I've found my heart sinking at the CoA suggesting that the solution is for the Tavistock to get its house in order rather than courts to be managing everything, I think back to this key point.

Yes, very true. Ultimately that is what has to happen - not to have children left in limbo because a clinic says its hands are tied, but to have good, solid, evidence-based treatment that is in the best interests of the child/young person.

Counsel for Transgender Trend is now up.

there is no inevitability of puberty blockers leading to cross-sex hormones

Just that 99% of those on PBs went on to the hormones ...

McKendrick: Puberty blocking treatment for gender issues is not experimental. Because there is no inevitability of puberty blockers leading to cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers are reversible.

As I mentioned above, one of the judges in the Court of Appeal said that in the High Court case one part of the outcome sought was a declaration that it was impossible for a child to consent to receiving puberty blockers for gender issues and this claim was lost. However, a fall-back position was won by Keira Bell that it should require a court to determine whether a particular child could give consent.

If Gillick is a slippery slope, it's one we have been on for 30+ years.

McKendrick’s argument seems to be somewhat painting a target on the backs of endocrinologists. If he’s saying it’s their responsibility not the Tavistock to assess Gillick competency

How can they if they are not fully au fait with the results of the GIDS experiment, which strongly suggests that the second and third consent stages are moot?

Back for the final session:

McKendrick’s argument seems to be somewhat painting a target on the backs of endocrinologists. If he’s saying it’s their responsibility not the Tavistock to assess Gillick competency and the AC allows the appeal on a technical matter about the scope of JR, it still means a judge has found, on the evidence, that a child is unlikely to have Gillick competency for this treatment. He has argued that a court has not heard the submissions of his clients and that seems correct however it would be something of a lawyer’s victory. The endocrinologists will be in a difficult situation. I think this applies generally to a technical win by the Tavistock. They would be taking a huge risk in going back to business as usual, although they seem fairly light on risk assessment.

Well said @MissLucyEyelesbarrow

there is so much more scrutiny now - largely thanks to Keira. Her victory has been bringing the scrutiny, and that can't be underdone by an AC judgement on quite narrow legalistic points

Whenever I've found my heart sinking at the CoA suggesting that the solution is for the Tavistock to get its house in order rather than courts to be managing everything, I think back to this key point.

By the way, you've been making good points in this thread MissLucyEyelesbarrow. Thanks.

If the AC judgement goes against Keira, I will be sad for her personally, but I doubt it will make much difference to future PB prescribing at the Tavi because there is so much more scrutiny now - largely thanks to Keira. Her victory has been bringing the scrutiny, and that can't be underdone by an AC judgement on quite narrow legalistic points. Stop undermining what she has achieved and handing a victory to her opponents.

It sounds to me like what SHOULD happen is that GIDS should have a multidisciplinary team, which includes endocrinologists who understand the entire process.

Instead, because of the way the NHS works, separate teams do different bits of the jigsaw and you run a risk of nobody taking ultimate responsibility.