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/

The fact is that every aspect of the trans issue has been drenched in capitalism from the word go. This all started for no other reason than a lot of people thought they could make money off it. The surgeons and pharmacies making money off "transition" treatments, the lobby groups attracting funding through trans inclusive policies, the corporations transwashing their marketing, the plethera of new businesses which sprung up to sell binders and packers, the groups selling their diversity awards and inclusion training, the men winning money and prizes in women's sports, the "academics" making names for themselves, and the many many other ways in which companies are currently trying to isolate us from perfectly normal parts of our personalities, rebrand them as "identities", and then sell them back to us. This is the most hyper capitalistic movement I have ever seen, and sadly it'll only end when there's money to be made from it going into reverse. So first it'll be the lawyers, and boy will they have a buck to make here. And the more people are angry about the harm done to our children, the more money they'll make, so you can bet we're going to see some sensational ads coming out before long. Then it'll be the pharmacies and surgeons again, this time flogging their "restorative" treatments for detransitioner, then the next wave of academics researching what I expect will be seen one day as the worst medical scandal since lobitomies. Trust me, one it becomes sufficiently lucrative, the pendulum is going to start swinging back really fast.

@LaurieFairyCake

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

The argument is that you still can't have legally consented to something you are given false or misleading information about it or you can't consent under duress and you cant consent if you lack the proper capacity to consent, even if you do sign.

And I too question if the mental health aspect is taken away, the argument is why is NHS doing cosmetic procedures that are not reconstruction?

And if it is a sexual condition (what does this imply) do people then get Sexism therapy and penis enlargements on the nhs?

I have a now overdue FOI to the Tavi asking for details of the consent forms/info about possible side/long term effects of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones given to parents and adolescents. I’ve chased them up- they are about a week and a half late.

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.

The difference between the states and the uk is in the uk you can only get compensation for the harm you have suffered - in the states they can award punitive damages too.

*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*

I can't remember all the details off the top of my head but Scott Newgent on twitter has been campaigning on twitter and elsewhere, I think there have been related threads here. The surgeon (I'm sure there others too) he (she) refers to is Dr Crane.

Everyone says how litigious the states are but it seems there are lots of loopholes too. I think Dr Crane simply moved to another state. I've no idea what the time limit is but only yesterday Scott was tweeting that he is out of time for litigation.

And the private system there makes it so difficult in lots of ways, for instance other surgeons don't want to help with reconstruction etc for various reasons including legal so people like Scott end up either having to go back to the surgeon that did so much harm or they can't find anyone to repair it.

Here's a link to his thread yesterday.

twitter.com/scottnewgent/status/1309717652261265408?s=21

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?

The evidence includes the massive data leak from mermaids. Some of it was archived in a certain place before it all got fully deleted. It included correspondence between mermaids and Tavi, discussing patient information leaflets with Tavi asking for Mermaids approval.
I hope the lawyers know where to find that archive.

‘Out of time’ - how can that be when Scott has ongoing health problems? They don’t just say “oh that burglary you had - Well it’s too late now- we know who did it but it’s out of time...”

Isn't there also question about ethically should that op even be done at all. Isn't the complication rate like in the 90 percent mark?

@FannyCann

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?

The evidence includes the massive data leak from mermaids. Some of it was archived in a certain place before it all got fully deleted. It included correspondence between mermaids and Tavi, discussing patient information leaflets with Tavi asking for Mermaids approval.
I hope the lawyers know where to find that archive.

I think that data breach is still the subject of investigation by the ICO?

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/671919/response/1598534/attach/2/Information%20request%20response.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

And I also thought that the Charity Commission was investigating other aspects from that data breach?

One of the big differences between US and UK healthcare systems is that as the US is private, each doctor has their own malpractice insurance - over here the NHS picks up the cost. In the US both crimes and civil claims have a statute of limitations: this isn't the case for crime in the UK, but I'd be interested to know if there's a statute of limitations for civil claims.

...freely given without coercion or the perception of coercion

I'm wondering if parents are acting under coercion if they are signing on behalf of children who are constantly begging and beseeching, threatening suicide etc; and sign against their own better judgment?

I'm wondering if parents are acting under coercion if they are signing on behalf of children who are constantly begging and beseeching, threatening suicide etc; and sign against their own better judgment

And where would it leave them if they have profited/benefitted from their childs transition. Publicity/public appearances/ newspaper articles /legal proceeds against schools/ transition related crowd funders

We have also seen certainly on twitter a few teenage/adults who have been given employment or political positions and benefits like tickets, free stuff, trips etc

Could parents be prosecuted for exploitation at the same time?

Not to mention the constant barrage of dodgy statistics about suicide from trans charities. As a parent, I can see how you might feel you had to sign permission for drugs and surgery or face losing your child. It's just not a good place from which to be making a decision.

The judgement by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court last year setting a precedent for surrogacy costs awarded in medical negligence may come into play too. The claimant in that case was awarded costs to cover seeking surrogacy in the US (quite a controversial judgement).

Obviously many of us are against commercial surrogacy and it's a future outcome where feminists and detransitioners are likely to clash.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed210834

Yeah and the affirmation from the bbc.

Looking at you Victoria Derby shire

I do feel desperately sorry, especially at the moment, though for those parents who went down this route in good faith, believing it was the best thing for their child (and of course for the children involved).

It must be a horrendous time for them, seeing the questions start to bubble up about these treatments and worrying about what they have done to their children. Although we know there have been some high-profile cases of parents who seemed desperate to "trans" their kids regardless, I'm sure many will just have been doing what they were advised was best by the likes of Mermaids/Stonewall, doctors, even their schools... and thought they were helping their children with their distress.

@NewlyGranny

Not to mention the constant barrage of dodgy statistics about suicide from trans charities. As a parent, I can see how you might feel you had to sign permission for drugs and surgery or face losing your child. It's just not a good place from which to be making a decision.

When you are being told "happy son Vs dead daughter" rational decisions possibly go out the window. It was (is?) sold as a fait accompli that if the child wasn't allowed to transition they would kill themselves, must be very difficult to resist under tat level of pressure - especially when the so called experts are telling you this.

Definitely. The vast majority of parents just wanted to do the best thing for their child as we all would. Which is why it's such a tragedy and a controversy, those fears were played on and amplified by people with a sinister agenda.

I hope those individuals pay the full price and die in jail.

This was pushed everywhere

Media social media telly twitter schools universities councils police forces governments

Born in the wrong body.

Stories of great joy and happiness once transtioned

Schools keeping secrets from parents

The lies that were told

The lies

Although we know there have been some high-profile cases of parents who seemed desperate to "trans" their kids regardless

I hope the first law suit serves to re introduce boundries.

To remove the unwritten exemptions from child protection agencies where things like this are concerned. Its going to be difficult to argue harm was caused or that children were placed in danger when it remains seemingly ok for children to be places or speak to people or do things that in any other circumstances would be seen as inappropriate. These boundries need reinforcing urgently .

this isn't the case for crime in the UK, but I'd be interested to know if there's a statute of limitations for civil claims. Yes there is Lysistrata and I think it's 6 years if it were something like negligence which I think this would come under

This is a really important development thank you for posting OP.

However I noticed that it doesn’t seem to cover puberty blockers as well? Why would they leave that out? Suggests to me this is commercial marketing on a relatively superficial level and the lawyers haven’t yet thought very in depth about this area maybe? I wonder if legal action could actually be much more widely applicable (and lucrative to lawyers) than they may be thinking?

Because in addition to adding off label drugs used as puberty blockers into the list of claimable scenarios: on a separate point (Quoting from the lawyers’ webpage linked to:

Such complex procedures require full psychological assessment and psychiatric input; a valid claim may arise if problems arise because strict guidelines were not adhered to.

^ That’s all true. But it doesn’t seem to cover the other simple point that Gillick competence surely DOESN'T cover permanently excluding the possibility of situations that a child hasn’t ever experienced and can’t be expected to have the competence to understand or consent to?

Consequences like giving up possibly FOREVER, IRREVERSIBLY the chance to have normal physical and mental maturation by going through puberty, retaining normal IQ development, normal bone density, not elevating risks of major health problems, not obliterating a child’s natural capacity to reproduce using their own body without assisted reproduction, not removing their chance to have normal sexual sensation, not making the child into a medical patient for the rest of their adult life..?

That’s completely different to Gillick competence of child or young person to consent to being prescribed contraception to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections at this age, or Gillick competence to consent to an abortion to not have this baby, now, at this age.

That’s a world away from consenting as a child or young person to potentially removing all natural adult sexual function, natural adult fertility, or natural adult reproductive capacity permanently. Those are life- changing and really unquantifiable losses.

For kids with capacity, Gillick is a fix to give cover over some critical years until adult consent is possible, but crucially leaving the same potential for the same options to remain open again for the same future adult to make choices about those things- as and when the same scenarios about contraception or abortion may arise and require a decision to be made.

In the absence of absolute overwhelming incontestably-evidenced medical life-preserving necessity to prescribe any permanent solution to gender dysphoria in someone who is a child (or vulnerable adult)... I have never understood how Gillick could be relied on as covering a child’s consent to removing something potentially ‘forever’.

Some of these potential or inevitable losses are understandably very far-away concepts for young people which they have never yet experienced and which many adults struggle to appreciate the full meaning of- until they are adults and have experienced them- like normal adult sexual function, experiencing pregnancy and birth, breastfeeding etc.

Gillick wasn’t about removing future choices and capabilities, as a consequence of decisions taken with the limited life experience and capacity of a child or young person.

So even if psychological assessments were valid or professional guidance was followed- which is what the lawyers seem to be valuing here- I still think the whole legal legitimacy could fall down on consent.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

I’m not a lawyer so would be interested to hear legal views on any of this.

@littlbrowndog

This was pushed everywhere

Media social media telly twitter schools universities councils police forces governments

Born in the wrong body.

Stories of great joy and happiness once transtioned

Schools keeping secrets from parents

The lies that were told

The lies

Unfortunately I think it is still too early to start using the past tense