AIBU about transgender person taking legal action against NHS for allowing her to transition? [[title edited by MNHQ on OP's behalf]]

[HollyGoLoudly1]

A 23 year old is taking legal action against the NHS for giving her treatment to transition to male as a teenager. She has since decided to live as a female and is taking legal action against the NHS as they should have 'challenged her' more when she wanted to transition rather than giving her the treatment.

The NHS can't do right for doing wrong here. Cash strapped to the point of collapse and being sued for giving someone the treatment they asked for. I despair.

AIBU or is this absolutely ludicrous?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51676020
from MNHQ - this title and OP originally said the person concerned was suing the NHS. They are in fact just taking legal action. The OP has asked us to make this clear but you may find some of the early posts reflect the words in the original title

In other words, it's a "Stop, wait a minute, is this legal? Should this be legal?" request for proper scrutiny.

Long long long overdue.

Over a year ago, Professor Carl Heneghan (lead Oxford evidence based medicine & BMJ editor) published his review of the medical interventions & concluded that 'informed consent is not possible'
This was covered on BBC Panorama & in mainstream newpapers (namely The Times)

BMJ EBM Spotlight paper:
'Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents – Evidence review'
Posted on 25th February 2019

(extract)
"Gender dysphoria occurs when a person experiences discomfort or distress because of a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. Gender dysphoria can arise in childhood and adolescent which raises many questions about how best to handle the condition. This post sets out the current evidence for gender-affirming hormones in adolescents and children to aid decision making. (continues)

"Conclusions

There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn. Similar to puberty blockers, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes; retrospective methods, loss of considerable numbers of patients in follow-up. The majority of studies also lack a control group (only two studies used controls). Interventions have heterogeneous treatment regimes complicating comparisons between studies. Also adherence to the interventions are either not reported or at best inconsistent. Subjective outcomes, which are highly prevalent in the studies, are also prone to bias due to lack of blinding, and many effects can be explained by regression to the mean.

The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms, including death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice."
blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

@PixieDustt
If you can't be arsed to read the article
READ THE FULL THREAD. (I went with the polite version)
then you'll find out the truth instead of your garbled version.

any suicides/self-harm will be blamed on those services and the practitioners in them.

There is no evidence that treatment v no treatment makes any difference to suicide ideation in this patient cohort. In fact, one of the reported side effects of the drugs used is depression and suicide ideation!

Found the one about how the lobbying faction work:
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

It's my opinion.
What part of the article have I got wrong?

That in itself should have given everyone pause for thought, ROwantrees. However, I think we've reached the stage where only a court ruling can provide the clarity we all need, once and for all.

And stop acting like you're the big I am. People have different opinions. Shock! They might be different from yours! 🤣

What part of the article have I got wrong?

SHE ISN’T SUING ANYONE AND THE NHS ARE NOT BEING ASKED FOR COMPENSATION.

Jesus Christ some people are poor at reading comprehension

She’s not suing the NHS, she’s working with other concerned people to try (by way of judicial review) to stop what happened to her from happening to other children.

I admire her courage, and hope the judicial review finds that children can’t ever provide “informed consent” to these treatments, as they can’t possibly understand the long term consequences properly.

We don’t let 16 year olds get tattoos, but that would be a much less serious choice than children are currently allowed to make who want to “change gender”.

We should be questioning why so many young women are so desperately unhappy with their bodies that they would make the choice of lifelong sterility and a double mastectomy.

We are failing young women with this madness, which to me is the equivalent of giving an anorexia sufferer weight loss drugs rather than therapy.

What part of the article have I got wrong?

The fact that she's not claiming any money...

Pixie...you’ve totally misunderstood that she isn’t suing anyone. She’s asking for a judicial review which is completely different. That’s what you’ve got wrong.

Facts. So damned inconvenient.

Isn't that part of the problem?

She was 16, they done 3 assessments where she mentioned on numerous occasions she was suicidal living as a woman. They gave her something they BELIEVED which she let them believe would better her life.
She had her breast chopped off at 20. That's a young adult. Not a teenager. By this point she had been transitioning to a male for 4 years.

The NHS has a Duty of Care & responsibility to Safeguarding of all patients, especially children & Vulnerable Adults.

All other departments in NHS follow ethical based protocols which do not simply operate on patients based on what patients 'believe' should be done to them.

There is much to commend the 'expert patient' approach to working in partnership, this is not an example of it.

The NHS GIDS service has silenced & denied the whistle-blowers concerns from within the service.

NHS staff have a responsibility to whistle-blow Safeguarding concerns, especially when impacting children & Vulnerable Adults.

Transition is a misleading and inaccurate word. These poor kids are not transitioning to anything, they are being medicated and mutilated.
The long term side effects of the drugs are absolutely dreadful.

I have steroid induced osteoporosis. It is painful and I have already had 3 fractures just from tripping up and falling over. I wouldn't wish it on anybody, let alone a teenage girl.

This OP is disingenuous. No one is suing anyone. It’s goady and just trying to stir up faux outrage and spread misinformation.

Oh okay. I still stand by what I said about the situation minus the suing part.

This isn't the other piece, but it may provide further insight www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/thomas-ocarroll-mainstreaming-pedophilia/

NHS aren't to blame her. Just trying to get some cash for her own mistake

@PixieDustt. This is the part that you're mistaken about.

TedsFederationRep It should have prompted an imediate ceasation of treatment & a thorough inquiry.

Its amazing & shocking that NHS GIDS appear to have continued with the protocol for a full year since Prof Heneghan's findings were published.

I cant imagine the same happening in any other area of children's medicine.

I just agreed to that.
Like I said though I still stand by everything else I said apart from the suing part.

Ah, cross post, I see PixieDusstt has already been told.

If the judge finds that the paediatric gender identity service has acted unlawfully, then yes, the NHS will be responsible.

It’s a rogue part of the NHS, it doesn’t behave like the other bits, that’s why it needs to be critically examined by a judge.

Did you miss the conclusion that Prof Heneghan came to a year ago?

'informed consent is not possible'

I'm agreeing with you, ROwantrees. But despite all the clear evidence, it's still come to this anyway - a judicial review.

I'm praying it stops the juggernaut.