Legal firms preparing to sue for "Transgender Treatment Claims"

[AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]

I think this is a huge development

www.attwatersjamesonhill.co.uk/medical-negligence/transgender-treatment/

We have always said that as these children grow and fully comprehend the disastrous life changing decisions that they made when they were too young to comprehend, their devastation and rage will be immense.

And this time, all the evidence of the medical, charities and corporate complicity is out there for everyone to see and use.

What does it mean ? All surgery/treatment is risky - guessing they had to sign disclaimers to that effect ?

I had surgery this week, had to sign a disclaimer saying I consented to possible complications of death

Interesting. They want to get in early. When law firms start advertising, the downsides will really get publicity.

I am surprised it has taken this long. Some organisations may be shitting themselves slightly at this development, especially the no win no fee part as that will attract a few people who otherwise wouldn't risk it..

Those floodgates are sounding a bit creaky...

What does it mean ? All surgery/treatment is risky - guessing they had to sign disclaimers to that effect
I would be interested in finding out if a disclaimer signed by a 10 year old child who is about to be put on puberty blockers which have been sold to her as reversible and harmless (and months later, that part is swiftly removed and not mentioned again)..would stand up in court.

Or a disclaimer signed by a parent. Again about totally harmless reversible drugs, which are anything but. The misrepresentation is likely to be an issue surely..unless the only thing looked at is the sigature? If so, I doubt many medical negligence claims would ever be won as the huge majority will have accurate paperwork, its not usually the paperwork thats the issue..

LaurieFairyCake
I think as so much of it is experimental, off label drugs, often used on children too young to give informed consent and from all accounts with a significant 'failure rate' the lawyers must be anticipating there's a lot to challenge.
A medical profession that refuses to give women sterilisations in case they change their minds yet performs double mastectomies and chemical sterilisation on children and adolescents because .. trans is likely to find explaining these decisions quite tricky.

Agree. I didn't read that as aimed at treatment at children - was assuming adults. Thankfully very few have been treated in this way with mastectomies etc (I'm sure I read it was under 40?)

I wouldn't have thought much of the adult transitioning stuff will be sucessful. It seems to be widely acknowledged that there are HUGE risks involved and it does seem they are quite well informed on the things that can go wrong. I have read horrifying stats, about only 50% or GRS being withut problems..not sure if thats accurate but its a shocking level IMO if its anywhere near right..

It doesn’t say you have to have been a child. A vulnerable 19 year old should be entitled to being protected and properly informed before making life altering medical changes without medical necessity. If they say they were actually undiagnosed with a different mental health condition or not properly able to consent due to that or lack of information they could probably sue.

As a child is defined as someone below the age of 18 I'd be very surprised if it was only 40? And we know that puberty blockers have been handed out in the UK to 12 year olds by doctors, with the Tavistock seeing children from the age of 3

It doesn’t say you have to have been a child. A vulnerable 19 year old should be entitled to being protected and properly informed before making life altering medical changes without medical necessity.

Of course.

I didn't mean adults wouldn't be sucessful. But I would think anyone claiming for actual SRS surgery could be on shakey ground as the risks are widely known. I guess negligence could still be proven/suspected though.

I hope every person who has had their health (physical or mental) buggered through this ideology and the lies can get whats due to them. That the NHS was also touting stuff like blockers as totally harmless until only a few months ago is fucking mindboggling.

I didn't mean adults wouldn't be sucessful. But I would think anyone claiming for actual SRS surgery could be on shakey ground as the risks are widely known. I guess negligence could still be proven/suspected though.

It wouldn't be the first time. Russell Reid was found guilty of misconduct and at least one civil claim was settled out of court.

I'm no expert on medical negligence law, but from what I've heard about trans medicine, they are not telling patients important things, which I presume could lead to negligence cases regardless of your views on gender ID.

For example, Sinead Watson said that nobody warned her about the potential for testosterone to cause serious atrophy of the uterus, which nearly killed Buck Angel and is the reason they often advise a hysterectomy after a few years on it.

I would think the backtracking of the NHS, Mermaids etc recently will be a big winner for these lawyers. Good luck to them.

I assume this is in anticipation of KB's remaining case and more. For example girls put on a medical pathway when watchful waiting would have been prudent especially when they later turn out to have undiagnosed autism.

I think the question might also be if someone was mentally unwell at the time of the decision and the doctor should have known this, does telling them the possibly side effects negate that they are too unwell to consent? I’m speculating completely.
But say an anorexic went to a doctor for liposuction. The doctor explained that due to them not being overweight, it could have bad side effects. The anorexic said she wanted it anyway. Would the doctor be liable because the patient should have been safeguarded from herself whilst mentally unwell?

"01LaurieFairyCake
What does it mean ? All surgery/treatment is risky - guessing they had to sign disclaimers to that effect ?
I had surgery this week, had to sign a disclaimer saying I consented to possible complications of death grin"
I had to sign something before I went in for emergency c section.
I was totally out of it and not really in any fit state to consent to anything other than wanting my baby and myself to be safe and healthy.
The difference is I was a grown woman, I had consented to being 9 months pregnant, that operation saved mine and my babies life, its an op thats been preformed millions of times before, and the fall out was not life limiting in any way.
The proof of its benefit is me and my son being alive.
These kids are kids, therefore they cannot consent, its not life saving, its experimental and in many cases is life limiting.
There is no proof it does any good.
There is growing proof with detransitioners that there treatments are harmful.
I hope they all sue and win.
Who ever thought giving cancer drugs to healthy kids was a good or right thing to do?
Its fucking sick.
I cant get sterilised on the nhs, unless i identify as trans, than I can get my tits lopped off onto the bargain.
Experimenting on and sterilising children is wrong.
It can never be right. Never.
Anyone who has endorsed this should hang their heads in utter shame and embarrassment.
Its disgusting to do this to any vulnerable person let alone children.
Sick.

Lawyers don’t take on cases on a no win no fee basis unless they think that it is pretty much a sure thing. Lawyers don’t advertise unless they think there is a market.

Next on my legal hit list would be the parents who have been pushing for this route for their young children.

Ah, well, this might be the beginning of the end, or at least the end of the beginning.

I've thought this was inevitable, for a while. I've heard way too many stories from adults who were just not given accrate descriptions of the risks or results.

And also, the diagnoses seem to be pretty dodgy. If the doctor says aleg amputation is my best hope, and he's not only wrong bit actually didn't bother to see what the real cause of my problem was, that's bad medical practise. People depend on doctors to tell them the situation accurately or at least make it clear when there is guessing going on.

Medical transition just isn't evidence based, but that is't what they have been telling people.

This will be in anticipation of Keira Bell’s judicial review. If they rule that she could not have consented as she was a child then that will open the door to many others.

I wonder if there are civil servants in the department of health working out how to pay for any claims. There is a precedent for multi million pound payments in the case of negligence resulting in infertility.

@CoolYourBeansMySon

I would think the backtracking of the NHS, Mermaids etc recently will be a big winner for these lawyers. Good luck to them.

Yes, surely the advice being changed from 'puberty blockers are fully reversible' to 'nobody knows the long-term effects of puberty blockers' is hugely significant. That's got to be evidence that parents were misled over the safety of these drugs.

I also wonder if there could be a case for not treating the underlying mental distress that so many vulnerable people have. For those who were diagnosed with autism after they underwent gender reassignment.

Every case is a life. I know someone who is watching this closely. It takes a lot to bring a legal suit so they want to see what other people do first.

Responsible adults alway knew that using drugs off label, immediate affirmation of children and allowing adult groups into schools to persuade impressionable pubertal children that they were born in the wrong body their bodies needing fixing with drugs and surgery was going to end in disaster.

Much as I find 'ambulance chasing' lawyers distasteful, in this instance I sincerely hope that they pursue and hold accountable the individuals responsible for pushing all this. Hopefully it's easy to trace it all back to certain influential groups and individuals. I hope they've all got good public liability insurance.