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/

It takes a lot to bring a legal suit so they want to see what other people do first.

Yes. A lot detransitioners were suffering from mental health conditions in the first place (why they transitioned) and are now having to deal with the fallout. I expect many of them won't feel strong enough to pursue a lawsuit. A lot of the detransitioners I see on YouTube just want to move on with their lives and put this behind them.

However, if Keira Bell wins, that might inspire others to come forward. And if the UK cases start to win, the American lawyers will start circling.

None of this is good for the men and women who bitterly regret the path they have taken. If they have had mastectomies or hysterectomies or castration (can I say that or must I say 'bottom surgery?'), that's irreversible. However, it might stop others from going down the same pathway without proper checks and balances in place.

Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull interviewed the mother of a transitioner on her show a while ago. (The interview was removed by YouTube but you can find it on other platforms.) The mother said she knew a woman whose daughter fully transitioned in her late teens and then realised in her early 20s that she had made a terrible mistake.

It was heartbreaking.

I don't know what the implications would be for puberty blocker Lupron or similar, as there is a catalogue of problems relating to bone density when the child reaches adulthood.
It was used for precocious puberty and these are well documented.
If a parent signed a consent form would the child still be able to claim negligence?

statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems

www.kelseycoalition.org/pubs/Lupron-Victim-Advocate-Issues-Urgent-Warning

www.hormonesmatter.com/lupron-precocious-puberty-parents-patients-speak/

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

I hope it was successful and you’re recovering well now, Laurie. You’re an adult giving informed consent. I don’t understand how a child can be said to give informed consent to non-essential surgery. And any parent believing they’re protecting their child from suicide has fallen for trans lobby propaganda that is not backed by evidence.

@Aesopfable

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.

This was my first thought as well. And I think that in the US it will be the lawsuits that create big changes - it's the most litigious society in the world, once the claims start there will be an avalanche of them. It may become virtually impossible for doctors performing SRS to get medical malpractice insurance. The whole sorry business could crumble. Hopefully.

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.
As well as the readily available information in America about the horrendous side effects of the main puberty blockers drug Lupron - crumbling skeleton, fits, death (I wonder if they have established the cause of sudden death in the recent teenage transgender case?) Apparently they have had 20,000 adverse reports (I’m not exactly what that means but it doesn’t sound promising)
The words ‘gross negligence‘ spring to mind.

The anorexia example is interesting, @Notyoungbutscrappyandhungry.
I wonder if the mental illness aspect is even necessary here (?). If a person apparently in full mental and physical health went to s surgeon and asked them to remove all her limbs, would it be OK for the doctor to do it? Wouldn't this go against "first do no harm", even if the patient was fully informed of risks?

In the UK it takes a pretty strong case for a law firm to take on a no win, no fee basis - the fact that they are even advertising shows that they believe they can win. I would imagine that they are building a class action and looking for potential claimants: this would be devastating for the Tavistock, Mermaids, and all the others that they could claim against.

They could also go after schools that have transitioned children behind their parents' backs.

And one other source of income for them would be to sue parents who encouraged their children to transition, when those children enter adulthood and realise they've made a huge mistake and their lives will never be the same.

(I realise that describing these heartbreaking cases as a source of income is rather cold, but that is all these children/young people are to these lawyers).

@NonCis

The anorexia example is interesting, *@Notyoungbutscrappyandhungry*. I wonder if the mental illness aspect is even necessary here (?). If a person apparently in full mental and physical health went to s surgeon and asked them to remove all her limbs, would it be OK for the doctor to do it? Wouldn't this go against "first do no harm", even if the patient was fully informed of risks?

Absolutely- we’ve discussed in other threads the cases where patients have got Body Integrity Disorder (I think, can’t access my google atm) and have identified as an amputee and tried to persuade a doctor to remove healthy limbs.

I think they struggle to find any doctor prepared to do that kind of surgery (as opposed to that awful surgeon in London advertising his mastectomy services on Instagram )

Although a lady in America persuaded a doctor to pour drain cleaner in her eyes as she identified as a blind person.

As far as I'm aware, a disclaimer does not absolve. It is usually very specific and refers to the operation itself e.g. kidney removal may be the right course, or only course of action but results are not guaranteed.

A disclaimer doesn't mean legal action can't take place, or shore up the defence. In trans ops, there are too many things that can go wrong and too many cases of people who weren't informed clearly of the consequences.

These lawyers have looked at the evidence that exists and their bonus schemes are probably going to be nice and juicy next year (unless there's a long wait)

Insurance companies will be getting ready to defend claims too. This could force change as clinics find their insurance costs start to go through the roof.

My mum (and I’m sure thousands of others) won a PPI claim on the basis that it wasn’t any use to her. She knowingly signed up for PPI but, because it wasn’t something she would have been able to claim on, it was considered to have been mis-sold. Same with all the Endowment funds.
Surely this is similar. Yes, parents knowingly signed the consent forms but did the child actually need the treatment? Doctors can’t simply say “well you signed the form!” That’s before you start on what doctors knew or suspected about the long term side effects.

I’ve always thought that it will be the lawsuits that will bring this to an end.

The use of harmful asbestos in industry was stopped due the massive legal action that was taken against the companies using it and the payouts that forced some them into bankruptcy. One local charity I know of focused entirely on helping the victims take legal action.

The more cases that are brought the more attention this will attract. Bring it on, the sooner the better.

They could also go after schools that have transitioned children behind their parents' backs

This point is well worth drawing to the attention of schools in the thick of this ideology with mixed sex toilets and transitioning children in secret.

The misrepresentation is likely to be an issue surely

Consent is only legally valid if it is informed, given by a person with capacity to make that specific decision at that specific time (so actually able to understand & evaluate the information provided), and freely given without coercion or the perception of coercion.

The Supreme Court decision in the Montgomery case makes the position on consent and negligence clear.

Doctors can no longer use the defence of "my colleagues would have done the same" or that they withheld information because they felt they knew better than the patient about whether they should agree or not. (The doctor in M withheld information to prevent the patient declining the doctor's preferred intervention in favour of one that would have meant her baby could have been born safely - the patient's baby now has lifelong disability that was entirely avoidable).

And if they don't have legally valid consent they have assaulted the patient, regardless of any paperwork. It is not the signed paperwork that makes consent legally valid, it is the legal conditions of consent being met.

Where there's blame there's a claim.

Not about cross sex hormones or surgery, but if anyone is interested in seeing just how little is known about puberty blockers and the amount of responsibility put on parents/adolescents to decide without what I would say is full understanding , watch this video by Aidan Kelly from the Tavi ((2018).

I summarised some of his comments in my tweet here:

twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1276821640203186176?s=21

Should have added, watch from the 15 minute mark onwards (well, watch the whole thing if you want, but it gets interesting from 15 minutes)

So I wonder if the large firms (especially the international ones) who supported all this will start to back the other horse then?

Where there’s money, there’s a lawyer.

I also wonder if this will also expose a mermaids or any other organization who might be liable for ‘coaching’ as clinicians have previously stated.

Certainly, it should make any clinician very careful in diagnosis of co-morbidities and treatment there. If it improves the overall treatment that transgender people are receiving, this is a good thing. If it allows children and teenagers to have better and more treatment options, it is a good thing. Particularly, if the gender clinics come on line and there is more appointments within a treatment.

Excellent development although awful for the people involved. The whole thing is crashing down as predicted and I'm so pleased it's sooner rather than later. The quicker we look back on this as an awful part of our history the better.

I think this is very interesting.

Any negligent or harmful treatment carried out by the NHS will be paid out from the public purse. Negligent payout claims run into mind-boggling money already and are a huge financial liability.

There is also the question of whether surgery is viewed as a cosmetic procedure, which comes under different rules. Medical principles of "first do no harm" are generally thrown out of the window. If someone wants massive melon breasts then that's up to them.

TRAs wanted to remove any notion of mental illness around transgenderism, so if it is no longer considered an illness, and rather a life choice, then what's the rule?

If a child has suffered lifelong irreversible harm, then who is to blame? The parents who consented to it? The charities (Mermaids et al) who pushed them down that path?

This is going to be a very long game from a legal pov.

Thank you user12533685436 Very helpful.

There is massive evidence that trans pressure groups have been given unparalleled access to medics, the Tavistock, the prison system, the DfE, schools etc and been able to actively influence medical treatment, policy decisions in schools, prisons, sport businesses etc. They have openly self identified as experts and publicly trained and advised about the medical treatment of children at the Tavistock, the NHS and their advice was followed. I wonder how they would figure in terms of legal accountability?

How did this work out in the states ?

Isn't there a dr with something like 8 or more pending law suits regarding complications if phalloplastys and he's still.practicing

[quote rogdmum]Not about cross sex hormones or surgery, but if anyone is interested in seeing just how little is known about puberty blockers and the amount of responsibility put on parents/adolescents to decide without what I would say is full understanding , watch this video by Aidan Kelly from the Tavi ((2018).

I summarised some of his comments in my tweet here:

twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1276821640203186176?s=21[/quote]
Oh God rogdmum That thread

I swing between rage and utter despair at what's been done to children in the interests of this ideology. If ever I feel worn down and a bit hopeless then hearing things like this about the appalling treatment of so many children makes me carry on. And thank you so much for all you do with this. I can only imagine the cost to you