Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

Also if the ruling is that this is just applying the law as it stands does this leave certain individuals open to prosecution?

Judgment and summary here:

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-quincy-bell-and-a-v-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-trust-and-others/

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Clinic-and-ors-Summary.pdf

So happy for Keira. This is massive, more than I dared to hope for. In practice no one is going to be prescribing puberty blockers if they have to go to court. The safe and reversible argument is also gone.

Thank you @BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero !

She's in the care of local authotity so presumably onlu has access to nhs.

@nauticant

It's interesting to see how the TRAs are spinning the decision on twitter:

"But this is just saying that doctors should apply the normal consent requirements for children!"

That's exactly the point. The "normal consent requirements" haven't been applied for who knows how many years.

exactly, I guess the claims of a 'win' from the TRA side may be part of the gaslighting - "we've always said it was really hard to get puberty blockers, we never said that it was essential for the kids survival, no one has ever encouraged the kids to take them, there are only about 3 kids in the uk taking them anyway....." etc.

Nothing to see here...

lostintheday
I dunno. Not read as much as you guys, but I think this is one of those areas where we may have to see how it plays out in practice.
If you have ever given medical consent it often feels just administrative, you know what you want, the medic reads some info out on risks, you nod and sign.

I mean , who decides if a child has really understood the immediate and long term consequences?

I agree. I’m not sure much will change in practice in most cases, except perhaps where a parent disagrees with the treatment and makes a strong case that the child’s understanding is poor.

The judges seem pretty clear that legal approval through the courts should be sought as best practise for anyone under 18.

If practitioners ignore this, and a 16-year-old came back later saying they didn't actually understand, it could seemingly open them up to legal action for not following the above.

@RedToothBrush

Also if the ruling is that this is just applying the law as it stands does this leave certain individuals open to prosecution?

Do you mean individuals who prescribe off label drugs to children, outside the nhs? Wonder who that could be? 🤔

However, the crucial part of this judgment is the court saying there is a legal presumption that for this kind of experimental treatment there is a presumption that under 16s cannot consent and it is dubious that under 18s can consent, so they will have to get a legal court order in order to get treatment (much like 16 year old Jehovah’s witnesses need to get a court order to refuse a blood transfusion).

That would make sense. It is in keeping with other situations. 18 is the age of majority for a reason.

Another excerpt from the judgement. You can almost see the raised eyebrows:

The court asked for statistics on the number or proportion of young people referred by GIDS for PBs who had a diagnosis of ASD. Ms Morris said that such data was not available, although it would have been recorded on individual patient records. We therefore do not know the proportion of those who were found by GIDS to be Gillickcompetent who had ASD, or indeed a mental health diagnosis.

Again, we have found this lack of data analysis – and the apparent lack of investigation of this issue - surprising.

No grounds for appeal, I'm reading

I'm so happy UK courts, despite their evident leaning toward the TRA agenda and disappointed they can't act outside the confines of the law, are indeed sticking to precedent (despite some comments in the Freddie McConnell case judgement which hinted that they wished otherwise).

In UK law, the rights, safeguarding and protection of the child always wins. FM found that out last month, and thankfully Kiera Bell's case has followed that precedent.

No UK court could reasonably go against that one abiding principle, but even so it wouldn't have surprised me if they had.

So delighted for Keira.

An appeal might be turned down because the judgement is simply applying existing law - so no grounds.

Please let it be so. And then the Tavi director needs to resign and the clinic needs to get back to evidence-based compassionate care for these troubled souls - mostly girls - who are being persuaded that they need to change their bodies to fit in with society, rather than change society.

Either way Keira is truly heroic.

These are the most relevant paragraphs from the summary:

1. The court held that in order for a child to be competent to give valid consent the child would have to understand, retain and weigh the following information: (i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms; (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical

interventions; (iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery; (iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility; (v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function; (vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships; (vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.

1. The court considered that it was highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It was also doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blocking drugs.
2. In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a statutory presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs.

And yes, to all those disingenuous posters suddenly coming out of the woodwork, this will make a great deal of difference to the hundreds of young LESBIANS who would otherwise be heading down this route each year. This has been homophobia in action.

@MammothMashup

life-saving puberty blockers.

Fuck off with your gaslighting.

Yeah, that infuriated me as well. Cancer treatment is life-saving. Puberty blockers? No.

If there can be no appeal the Tavi lawyers need to explain, maybe they don't know themselves.

Haven’t had a chance to read up all (now discussing crappy concrete) but Kiera is a star. Nerves of steel (the reinforced type).

Keira has been awarded 80% costs, according to ObjectUK.

the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.

And frankly, I am hoping beyond hope that this means that many more studies will be undertaken to get answers instead of being shut down as being 'phobic' and 'no debate'.

I thought it was going to go the other way and we'd have the TRAs crowing all day.

So pleased. THIS is what brave looks like.

@littlbrowndog

Wow from part of the court papers - the defendant didn’t have any clinical evidence why so many girls were being treated

31. Apart from the age distribution, there are other aspects of the patient group which are relevant to this case. The number of referrals to GIDS has increased very significantly in recent years. In 2009, 97 children and young people were referred. In 2018 that number was 2519.
32. Further, in 2011 the gender split was roughly 50/50 between natal girls and boys. However, in 2019 the split had changed so that 76 per cent of referrals were natal females. That change in the proportion of natal girls to boys is reflected in the statistics from the Netherlands (Brik et al “Trajectories of Adolescents Treated with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogues for Gender Dysphoria” 2018). The defendant did not put forward any clinical explanation as to why there had been this significant change in the patient group over a relatively short time.
33. It is recorded in the GIDS Service Specification and the wider literature that a significant proportion of those presenting with GD have a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The Service Specification says: “There seems to be a higher prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) conditions in clinically referred, gender dysphoric adolescents than in the general adolescent population. Holt, Skagerberg & Dunsford (2014) found that 13.3% of referrals to the service in 2012 mentioned comorbid ASD (although this is likely to be an underestimate). This compares with 9.4% in the Dutch service; whereas in the Finnish service, 26% of adolescents were diagnosed to be on the autism spectrum (Kaltiala-Heino

No mention of the study on the role of media coverage? Polly Carmichael herself was one of the authors. The same Polly Carmichael who advertised PBs as a "pause button" on CBBC.

Congratulations!!!!!

Transgender Trend statement:

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

Excerpt:
"The most striking aspect of the court case was the complete absence of ideology and ideological language. Nobody claimed that some children have a ‘gender identity’ that doesn’t match the sex they were ‘assigned at birth’ to justify the use of blockers and hormones. In the absence of the ideology, the justification for this treatment falls apart. It was revealed that in the real world, there is no justification for serious medical intervention on children’s healthy bodies."

Joylon has tweeted

twitter.com/jolyonmaugham?s=21

This for me is the pin point.
iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
(v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function;
(vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
(vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs;

This ^^ needs to be spelled out to anyone involved in treatment, and consented to.

No more vagueness, bright bright surgical light on the nature of the treatment.