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

This draconian, irreversible medical intervention is experimental and unprecedented.

And there’s no consistency. Why is it “best practice” for children to change their bodies while people who identify as transwomen as adults usually don’t?

July 2019 Prof Michael Biggs (Oxford)
'The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers'
(extract)
"I will argue that the experimental study did not properly inform children and their parents of the risks of triptorelin. I will also demonstrate that the study’s preliminary results were more negative
than positive, and that the single published scientific article using data from the study is fatally flawed by a statistical fallacy. My conclusion is that GIDS and their collaborators at UCL have either ignored or suppressed negative evidence. Therefore the NHS had no
justification for introducing the Dutch protocol as general policy in 2014." (continues)
GnRHa drugs have never been licensed for treating children suffering from gender dysphoria. The particular drug used in Britain, as in the Netherlands, is triptorelin, which is licensed to treat advanced prostate cancer and sexual deviance in men; endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women (for no longer than six months); and precocious puberty in children (Electronic Medicines Compendium 2019). Using GnRHa to treat gender dysphoria is “a momentous step
in the dark”, for it is “presumptuous to extrapolate observations from an intervention that suppresses pathologically premature puberty to one that suppresses normal puberty” (Richards et al. 2018). Therefore the origins of the Tavistock’s experiment needs some explanation.

The Dutch protocol became well known in Britain before the first scientific article was published. A television documentary showed girls who wished to be boys travelling to meet their peers in the Netherlands, who were taking GnRHa as young as 13 (Channel 4 1996). This inspired Stephen Whittle—who led the transgender campaigning organization Press for Change—to argue for a legal right to access “pubertal suppression”; doctors who failed to provide drugs could be vulnerable to litigation (Downs and Whittle 2000; Wren 2000: 224).
This argument was first advanced at a conference at Oxford in 1998, whose keynote speaker was the head of the Amsterdam Gender Clinic. There was little movement, however, over the next few years. Guidelines issued by the British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BSPED) in 2005 still insisted that children had to reach full sexual development (known as Tanner Stage 5)—around the age of 15—before being prescribed GnRHa drugs. A crucial role was played by organizations that campaign for the transgendering of
children: the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) and Mermaids.

GIRES organized a symposium in London in 2005 to develop “guidelines for endocrinological intervention”. Additional funding came from Mermaids, two medical charities—Nuffield Foundation and King’s Fund—and the Servite Sisters Charitable Trust Fund. This brought together the creators of the Dutch protocol, American clinicians like Norman Spack in Boston, and key British figures such as Domenico Di Ceglie, the Director of GIDS, and Polly Carmichael and Russell Viner, both at Great Ormond Street Hospital. (The latter two would lead the 2011 experiment.) Some of the participants vigorously lobbied for the Dutch protocol. Veronica Sharp from Mermaids “described users’ and parents’ views of the available treatments, and the anguish they may experience when hormone blocking is delayed” (GIRES 2005)" (continues)users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

Sorry not RTFT but in case anyone wanted to know more about how judicial review works- www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

AFAIK it’s a judge reviewing the decision of a public body and if the judge says it was made arbitrarily, irrationally or beyond the powers of that public body to decide then the judge orders the decision to be remade by the body.
Judge doesn’t supply the ‘right answer’.
It does mean that public bodies are accountable for their decisions
which is important in a functioning society/democracy.

"and she knows better than anyone that people cannot change sex"

That's the whole crux of it really, isn't it?

And saying that she doesn't have a man's body, but a woman's body with scars.

Why was she led to believe that surgery would result in anything other than that?

And saying that she doesn't have a man's body, but a woman's body with scars.

Why was she led to believe that surgery would result in anything other than that?

CBBC 2014
77,093 views
'I am Leo'

Leo "Im a boy born in a girl body"
features PollyCarmichael of NHS GIDS childrens services & Stephen Whittle as a 'superhero' for children identified as transgender.

The BBC CBBC program shows the influence of online 'information' , UK Government Passport Office, Press For Change & schools.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

2015 ITV This Morning

Are. Stephen Whittle. Swhittling away at gatekeeping and safeguarding for children.
When the compo lawsuits start, I hope they take Whittle down too.
Wonder if Stephen Whittle will be trying to insert stephenself in the judicial review, like Mermaids are?

I was very pleased to see the website launch of this organisation. They have a very experienced advisory board:

www.segm.org/about_us

“We are an international group of nearly 100 clinicians and researchers concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. We represent expertise from a range of clinical disciplines.

Our objectives include evaluating current interventions for gender dysphoria, providing balanced evidence summaries, promoting the development of effective and supportive psychosocial approaches for the care of young people with gender dysphoria and generating good, answerable questions for research.

Young people with gender dysphoria deserve respect, compassion, and high quality care. Please join us in our mission to promote evidence-based care for children, adolescents, and young adults that prioritizes life (i.e. measures of mortality), quality of life, long-term outcomes, and fully informed consent. SEGM is free from political, ideological, religious, or financial influences.”

Stephen Whittle. Swhittling away at gatekeeping and safeguarding for children.

DuLANG
Have you seen Whittle's threat of legal action to NHS doctors if they did not adopt the 'Dutch Protocol' ?

Biggs (linked above)
"This inspired Stephen Whittle—who led the transgender campaigning organization Press for Change—to argue for a legal right to access “pubertal suppression”; doctors who failed to provide drugs could be vulnerable to litigation (Downs and Whittle 2000; Wren 2000: 224)"

SEGM

"The medical pathway of the Gender-
Affirmative model consisting of...
Puberty blockers (GnRHas)
Lifelong cross-sex-hormones
Mastectomy or breast implants
Removal of ovaries or testes
Hysterectomy
Surgical removal and revision of sex organs

...is based on a single Dutch study:
55 subjects (only 40 completers)
100% had childhood-onset gender dysphoria (no adolescent-onset gender dysphoria cases)
Only one year post-surgery follow-up at an average age of under 21
No control group
No physical health effects evaluation
One adolescent died as a result of post-operative complications. Several others could not pursue treatment due to new health issues arising following hormonal administration
Mixed psychological outcomes
Unchanged or worsening gender dysphoria and body image difficulties while on puberty blockers, especially among natal adolescent females"

Despite the uncertainties and poor evidence, hormonal and surgical interventions are being scaled up. They go beyond the experimental “Dutch protocol” by:

Encouraging early social transition, explicitly discouraged by the Dutch protocol
Being applied to young people with adolescent-onset gender dysphoria, a population not included in the Dutch study"

It’s outrageous isn’t it? I recently read a leaflet Whittle authored years ago about funerals and trans people. In it Whittle says that people should have their deaths registered under their lives gender, even if the birth certificate was never changed. It’s clearly legally wrong. Whittle gives no shits, just want what Whittle wants.

As I have said elsewhere my 17 yr old stepdaughter is now infertile and has a beard. She also has weak bones.
'Treatment' started at 16. The whole thing is child abuse and my husband is distraught at this and having no control.

Astonishing that one person has wielded so much power unchecked.

I doubt few realise the extent.

Mrskeats

I can only imagine the heartache that parents feel.

I had a total hystectomy in my 30s due to gynaecological cancer. It was essential to save my life, yet there was & still is great care in considering & mitigating the side effects such as bone density of surgical menopause. I also had counselling & support to consider the impact to my fertility despite the pressing timescale to decide on treatment options.

I cannot understand how girls have been failed this way.

Its as if this small corner of the NHS is oblivious to so much standard knowledge & good practice

Mrskeats It’s terribly difficult for parents especially when they can see the amount of influence these children/adolescents are coming under. I had no idea a school would even dream of formally transitioning a child behind the parents’ backs (but now know it’s quite common), nor did I ever imagine we’d have a battle to get them to stop.

Turned out to be the best thing we could have done- our DD went from skipping class/failing tests/barely speaking to us etc (all started as soon as the school affirmed) to bouncing back to her old self as soon as they stopped. Children still affirm her, but her therapist says it’s common for autistic girls to want that protection from other children, but not adults despite what they may say.

We could have so easily gone the other direction and falsely thought her downward spiral was due to not getting her treatment fast enough etc had we gone down the Mermaids route.

The testimonies from those young women in the Elephant in the room videos are heartbreaking.

It’s time people stopped being afraid of „legal action“. It’s seems it’s becoming the only way to discuss things in a measured fashion.

Michael Biggs

"The research proposal provided a comprehensive review of the potential benefits and risks of GnRHa. “It is not clear what the long term effects of early suppression may be on bone development, height, sex organ development, and body shape and their reversibility if treatment is stopped during pubertal development” (Viner 2010). Viner spoke frankly in a later newspaper interview:
If you suppress puberty for three years the bones do not get any stronger at a time when they should be, and we really don’t know what suppressing puberty does to your brain development. We are dealing with unknowns. (Daily Mail, 25 February 2012) (continues)

Another reports bone density for children on GnRHa, some of whom were subjects in the experiment (Tobin, Ting, and Butler 2018). Density was measured over three years for 31 children. The authors state reassuringly that bone density did not decline in absolute terms. This is misleading, because growing children need density to increase (Laidlaw 2018). The abstract acknowledges that the children experienced a decline relative to the norm for their age group, and this decline was especially marked for girls. By year three, the average girl on GnRHa had lower bone density than 97.7% of the population in her age group. Surely this raises serious concerns? (continues)

users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf

The testimonies from those young women in the Elephant in the room videos are heartbreaking

The atmosphere on the day was indescribable. I cried several times. At the end, everyone gave them a standing ovation. Everyone except Dr Stuart Lorimer, of Gendercare, Helen Islan, formerly of Mermaids, known online as ‘MimmyMum’ and their friends, who crept out the back.

Since then, Lorimer has announced that he will no longer prescribe ‘bridging hormones’ and will only refer to the endocrinologist or the GP associated with Gendercare and his colleague, Dr Penny Lenihan, psychologist, has announced she will no longer be making gender dysphoria diagnosis, but will instead be concentrating on counselling and adult autism assessments. I have no knowledge as to whether this has been promoted by insurance complications, the fear of future lawsuits, or a sudden regret/understanding of being complicit in the medical-sanctioned self-harm of traumatised teens.

Dr Lorimer used to post on Tumblr looking for natal female customers/patients. One female (FTM) patient even had his business card logo tattooed on their neck.

Thanks everyone.
We are really hoping for a good outcome of the judicial review.
Interesting that one of the parties worked at the Tavistock.

YABU

The NHS made some serious errors when they agreed to permanently damage the bodies and fertility of healthy humans who believe that they can 'transition' from female to male or vice versa.

Doctors aren't McDonald's, obliged to fill your order no questions asked. They have a duty of care to patients to establish whether a treatment will IMPROVE the health of that patient, and an obligation to ensure that the patient has full capacity to give informed consent.

Oh, and they have a duty not to lie or mislead patients.

If every patient was given the correct medical information there wouldn't be a generation of permanently damaged people realising they haven't become the opposite sex after all, they've just needlessly and irrevocably damaged their bodies.

When female teenagers turn up to see a GP insisting they are male inside their head because of how they think, they need to hear no-one is male or female in the way they think. That male and female is a matter of body, not mind, and not yearning. That hormones will damage you. That surgery will damage you. That none of it will change your sex, and none of it will bring happiness, and that you'll spend a lifetime as a patient futilely trying to force the entire world to agree with you on something they can plainly see isn't true. And most importantly, that children do not have the capacity to consent to the enormity of this change and it's lifelong health consequences.

"Positive affirmation" is utter dereliction of duty.

@HeadLikeAFuckinOrange - you said this:
"If a person feels that their arms doesn't belong to them, or their eyes, or their ears, that they don't feel like part of their body - and wish to have them amputated, or removed, they'd be considered to have a significant mental health issue and psychiatric treatment be sought.

Even at the end of this treatment, if the person insisted that their arms/eyes/ears were not wanted - would an NHS doctor remove them?"

There have actually been cases where unnecessary amputations have been carried out, I don't think by the NHS, because the person would have gone ahead and done them themselves without medical supervision or care. It's called Body Integrity Identity Disorder and is, if anything, even more disturbing than gender dysphoria. To believe that you are meant to be disabled, in whatever way, is stunningly bizarre.
kcsschmidt.com/BME2016/Bayne-AmputeesByChoice.pdf

No other form of therapy was suggested
Except we don't know that. That's what she says.

It's a natural reaction to blame someone else when we are not happy with the decisions with made. It's also natural to have selected memory to support the need to blame.

There is a very detailed service specification for gender reassignment based on clinical evidence that will have gone through various levels of ratification by a number of organisations. It also includes recommendations relating to young people/children.

The court will have a very hard time disputing the specification. Where they might succeed is If the Trust didn't flow the pathways clearly stipulated in the service specification.

Here is a Twitter thread on the disturbing link between those who feel they should be an amputee and the concept of gender identity.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224766770805866499.html