Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Helen Webberley

978 replies

Signalbox · 05/07/2021 11:59

Looks like Helem Webberley's substantive case has finally been listed for 26th July 2021

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

OP posts:
Thread gallery
43
Signalbox · 16/08/2021 15:53

Briefly

Helen Webberley's representative is Mr Ian Stern QC
GMC's representative is Mr Simon Jackson QC

There was a lot of discussion this morning about the order of witnesses. It is important for some witnesses to be heard before others.

Today Dr Klink has been giving evidence. He can only give evidence today and tomorrow and there are concerns that this may not be long enough to complete the evidence so solutions discussed before evidence started. Also his evidence was only received by the defence on 13th August and they are asking for a delay.

Dr Klink is one of the GMC’s witnesses. I think he is one of their expert witnesses because the tweets mention his “report” being “his opinion of the concept of providing care as part of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT)”. Dr Klink is a Paediatric endocrinologist from Amsterdam Uni Medical Centre, Dept of Paediatrics.

Simon Jackson (SJ) (GDC) questions Dr Klink first…

Dr Klink sees patients from age 10 to early adulthood. The younger the patient the more a MD approach is required. And MDT would comprise mental healthcare, endocrinology, surgeons, physical therapists and speech therapists.

Dr K says that providers of gender affirming healthcare should be well qualified. From the tweets it looks like he is saying that to make an assessment that will lead to hormone treatment a clinician should be a paediatrician with 2 years additional training to become an endocrinology specialist. Dr Klink doesn’t think it is appropriate for one doctor to fulfil the role of the whole MDT. One person cannot be qualified to do this all by themselves.

He is asked about the assessment process and what this entails and what should be recorded. He is asked about irreversible changes.

He is asked about the appropriate ages for starting hormone treatments. He says generally 16 but in rare cases 15. These patients will have been patients at his clinic for several years. He says that there is not a lot of evidence to go on in this area so every centre has to rely on their own clinical experience.

He says in Amsterdam patients must have been seen at an early age in his clinic and have been on PB for at least 3 years and have received counselling on fertility and other surgical issues before being considered for HT.

He said guidance on this is not fully tested on adolescents so there is not a lot of data on how transgender patients will react to the drugs. Because it is so unknown it should be monitored by paediatric endocrinologists. You need a lot of knowledge of puberty to do this

Dr Klink is asked why he thinks age 12 is too young (HW prescribed testosterone to a patient aged 12). He says because of capacity to consent is more likely around age 15.

Dr Klink is asked about HW’s interaction with the MDT and an endocrinologist in view effects that these drugs can have (on bones, growth, sexual maturation etc.) Dr K says he cannot see from the notes that there was any communication between HW and the MDT or an endocrinologist.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/08/2021 14:53

Is anyone blogging on this trial anywhere? I'm finding it quite hard going reading the tweets and it'd be useful if someone who understood the procedures and jargon could translate - I can barely keep who is representing who straight Blush

Signalbox · 16/08/2021 09:59

"DisgustedofManchester: Read your own links, they are asking for breaks when their case starts becoming a farce. During the break they can discuss things with the legal team. They even are showing the witnesses new information during the evidence breaks. Its there in the tweet report."

You are plainly wrong...

Here is the MPTS own guidance on giving evidence and being under oath...

Breaks in the hearing

The hearing will adjourn (break) from time to time. This can be for things like comfort breaks or lunch, or at the end of each day if the hearing lasts more than one day.

It can also break if you feel that you need a break from giving evidence. If that is the case, just let us know.

Please remember: you must not talk to anyone about the case or about your evidence during any breaks. This includes anyone involved with the case, as well as your friends or family.

If you do speak to others, it could have a serious effect on the outcome of the hearing.

www.mpts-uk.org/witnesses/witness-guide-to-hearings/giving-evidence

OP posts:
Tisha0 · 16/08/2021 00:22

@Leafstamp - thank you.

Leafstamp · 15/08/2021 19:19

@Tisha0

When is the judgement due?
I presume a decision will be made at the end of the hearing? Which is mid October:

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

shesellsseacats · 15/08/2021 15:20

@MonsignorMirth

Actually I'd be surprised if any of our visitors here to argue can actually state the GC position accurately, in such a way that most proponents would agree represents their views.

That's why the internet is full of people arguing in circles. No desire to actually debate the points being argued.

Couldn't agree more.
MonsignorMirth · 15/08/2021 14:02

Actually I'd be surprised if any of our visitors here to argue can actually state the GC position accurately, in such a way that most proponents would agree represents their views.

That's why the internet is full of people arguing in circles. No desire to actually debate the points being argued.

MonsignorMirth · 15/08/2021 13:58

It shines a strong light on those that would prefer young people not receive the help they need for ideological reasons

Just to be clear - you think the GC position is that HW's treatment does "help", ie that it provides the most benefit for the least harm over whole life, but that we don't want children to have this benefit because of ideological reasons ?
Is that what you think?

Tisha0 · 15/08/2021 08:52

When is the judgement due?

Lettera · 14/08/2021 23:55

You're still going on about Webberley losing 'on a technicality'. You really don't understand the process, do you?

OldCrone · 14/08/2021 23:41

outside of giving them affirmative care, there is no other vcare on the table apart from conversion therapy.

What do you mean by conversion therapy in this context?

DisgustedofManchester · 14/08/2021 23:11

@Signalbox

They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness

You honestly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The witnesses aren't allowed to talk to anyone about their evidence whilst they are sworn in and giving evidence. Breaks may be requested when witnesses have been giving evidence for more than an hour or if they are upset because it's very tiring and stressful and they tend to give their best evidence if they are well rested.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice.

People are sent to jail to protect the public AND also as a punishment.

With fitness to practice the the primary objective is to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive but obviously it may feel like a punishment to the registrant. HW may not lose her license if her failures are considered to be remediable. Her issue will be that she has no insight into her failures and this never makes for a good doctor.

Read tyour own links, they are asking for breaks when their case starts becoming a farce. During the break they can discuss things with the legal team. They even are showing the witnesses new information during the evidence breaks. Its there in the tweet report.

As for your final comment, the case seems to hinge on HW who continued treatment ( not started new treatments ) or the complaint which was ignoring the whole 'do no harm ' principle of medicine and wanted ongoing treatment to stop without any other care being made available. If she loses it will be on a technicality but only she seemed to actually have the patient's needs as a priority.

It shines a strong light on those that would prefer young people not receive the help they need for ideological reasons because outside of giving them affirmative care, there is no other vcare on the table apart from conversion therapy.

Signalbox · 09/08/2021 11:34

And here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424678948387135488

OP posts:
Signalbox · 09/08/2021 11:32

Tweets for 9th August (day 11) start here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424657874312105986

And here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424673396617515010

Representing Helen Webberley: Mr Ian Stern, QC (IS).
GMC representative: Mr Simon Jackson, QC (SJ).

OP posts:
Signalbox · 08/08/2021 17:58

They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness

You honestly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The witnesses aren't allowed to talk to anyone about their evidence whilst they are sworn in and giving evidence. Breaks may be requested when witnesses have been giving evidence for more than an hour or if they are upset because it's very tiring and stressful and they tend to give their best evidence if they are well rested.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice.

People are sent to jail to protect the public AND also as a punishment.

With fitness to practice the the primary objective is to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive but obviously it may feel like a punishment to the registrant. HW may not lose her license if her failures are considered to be remediable. Her issue will be that she has no insight into her failures and this never makes for a good doctor.

OP posts:
Jorrris · 08/08/2021 15:22

I'm sure they'll get there. Looking forward to the outcome of this ☺️

DisgustedofManchester · 08/08/2021 15:22

@Lettera

It's incorrect to talk of 'winning' or 'losing' in this context.

This isn't a civil case, nor is the GMC prosecuting Webberley. The purpose of the hearing is to establish whether she is currently fit to practise as a doctor and, if not, whether a sanction should be imposed. Sanctions are not punishments but are designed to protect the public.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice. Its taken four years to get to this point and the GMC is a farce. They still haven't provided all the evidence for scrutiny to the defence team.
DisgustedofManchester · 08/08/2021 15:20

I think you will find it was someone in the NHS, in GIDS to be precise, that made the complaint, nice try.

The issue with memory loss here is that its very selective. They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness.

The GMC legal rep has been quite pragmatic to be fair which is good because the chair is losing patience with the GMC's case

Lettera · 06/08/2021 15:42

It's incorrect to talk of 'winning' or 'losing' in this context.

This isn't a civil case, nor is the GMC prosecuting Webberley. The purpose of the hearing is to establish whether she is currently fit to practise as a doctor and, if not, whether a sanction should be imposed. Sanctions are not punishments but are designed to protect the public.

Jorrris · 06/08/2021 11:41

@ArabellaScott

Does 'lose on a technicality' mean the same as 'be convicted'?
Yes, I believe it means exactly that.
Signalbox · 06/08/2021 10:23

And for completeness, @mpts_hearing tweets start here...

twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing/status/1423561453693456384

OP posts:
Signalbox · 06/08/2021 10:13

Day 10 tweets (@tribunaltweets, @robjessel) start here…

mobile.twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1423565754767716353

OP posts:
Chickenyhead · 05/08/2021 21:10

I have appeared in court as a witness due to my civil service role. All professional bodies have guidelines which apply to their work.

Those guidelines are to be followed in all cases, where this is not possible, it is necessary to record the reasons why. Records should be maintained.

Therefore, when appearing in court, I was able to swear, without doubt, as to what I did and didn't do, as a matter of course, in my role.

It is called due diligence. It isn't new. Look it up.

Technicality my arse.

ArabellaScott · 05/08/2021 19:05

Does 'lose on a technicality' mean the same as 'be convicted'?

Lordamighty · 05/08/2021 18:06

@DisgustedofManchester

I've been following the tweet thread provided and Helen W may still lose on a technicality but what is the most obvious outcome is the incompetence and obfuscation of the GMC and NHS services bringing this case. How many times will their witnesses have specific perfect recall and then suddenly say "I don't remember" about the same event?
The GMC are the ones bringing the case against Webberley & the NHS are not on trial here. Nice try though.
Swipe left for the next trending thread