Tavistock Appeal Denied

[OhHolyJesus]

Appeal denied!!!

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer) Tweeted:
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant. twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1335926918223433734?s=20

Anyone know what happens next?

More from same thread.

Good medical practice treats each individual individually according to their needs, and takes account of the culture around the patient let alone around the staff

It's not just the culture around the patient, it's the culture in society.

At the moment only a brave person would be prepared to publicly question what 'trans' means or suggest that feelings of gender dysphoria may have been triggered by something other than an internal sense of gender identity.

There are certainly strong parallels between the actions and expressions of 'Charlie's Army' in the Evans case, where enormous and very emotional and extreme tweets were pouring out from those who clearly did not understand what the court was saying, had little grip on the realities of the situation and were whipping up more and more emotion, and the political lobby in this situation.

Interesting thread. And certainly appears a quiet hint to Maugrim.

At the moment only a brave person would be prepared to publicly question what 'trans' means or suggest that feelings of gender dysphoria may have been triggered by something other than an internal sense of gender identity.

Reactions are akin to a tired and over-emotional adolescent when confronted with facts screaming "That's just mean. I don't want to talk about it" and then slamming the door.

Two articles in Times Law section today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6649d68e-3a1e-11eb-a4fe-454ae9b80c8b?shareToken=14a38a4f0d78b0620a405d3e048aacdb

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/849af778-3a26-11eb-a4fe-454ae9b80c8b?shareToken=ef36387bc300e8eeac57f66e50c5ce14

I have a theory, completely without evidence, that all those at the Tavistock are actually secretly relieved.

They didn’t have data. They didn’t keep good records. The clinic’s own staff were concerned about the use of PBs. They knew their study that is still being “peer reviewed” shows kids’ mental health doesn’t actually improve. They didn’t really mount a vigorous defence. They couldn’t really mount a vigorous defence. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there are people there who know they’ve fucked up big time over the last 10 years and it’s much easier to put the decision to end PBs on the court rather than admit it to themselves privately or publicly.

Thanks Fleegle. I do not believe history will be kind to civil liberties & human rights organisations currently arguing that children under 16 can give informed consent to lifelong medicalisation and infertility.

This is exactly how I see it. With the addition that the Tavistock didn't have data because they knew that if they'd gathered and processed it this would have left them in even more of a mess. They were hoping that being perceived as being on the right side of history (they might not even have believed it themselves) would see them through.

I think the Tavistock were desperate to have someone take the problem out of their hands.

I bet some staff are relieved, but hasn't losing opened them up to being sued into the ground though? Would they do that deliberately?

The alternative was to carry on ending up in an even worse mess of something looking like a Ponzi scheme built on the ruined lives of children.

I don’t think there would be personal liability. I think the NHS could be sued, but not sure individuals would be accountable. Maybe someone legal might know.

I think it would be covered by NHS vicarious liability.
It occurs to me, though, has anyone reported Polly Carmichael to the GMC?
In the light of the court case this needs doing I think.

She’s not a doctor, she’s a clinical psychologist, so who would that be? BPS?

@NotBadConsidering

I have a theory, completely without evidence, that all those at the Tavistock are actually secretly relieved.

They didn’t have data. They didn’t keep good records. The clinic’s own staff were concerned about the use of PBs. They knew their study that is still being “peer reviewed” shows kids’ mental health doesn’t actually improve. They didn’t really mount a vigorous defence. They couldn’t really mount a vigorous defence. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there are people there who know they’ve fucked up big time over the last 10 years and it’s much easier to put the decision to end PBs on the court rather than admit it to themselves privately or publicly.

That's what the trans lobby are arguing, that the Tavi deliberately failed to provide evidence and deliberately lost.

I'm not sure that that is the case. I do think there was a clear failure by management to scrutinise the service they provided. I think they were so well and truly captured that they were convinced they were providing the right care for the children.

We know that there were some frontline staff who were deeply worried and raised concerns but again management were probably dismissive of their views because of capture. The Newsnight feature talked about other staff who were accusing the ones who raised concerns as transphobic.

In short, management massively failed their staff and failed their patients.

The comments upthread about the length of time that would be needed for the Tavi to put together that peer-reviewed study have resonated with me.

I joined a medical trial last year (something where patients need to have an uncommon pre-existing condition to qualify for treatment, so we're hard to recruit). The professor running the trial is a medical doctor with a full NHS medical research framework behind him and an international reputation in his field. When I joined the trial, it was made very clear to me that his study comprised of a control group (qualifying patients who'd joined the trial, but elected to take NO treatment), patients who'd decided to follow a traditional treatment course (already passed medical trials years ago), and then finally a group that was taking the experimental treatment course. We will be tracked for decades, as the outcomes will be life long.

If I apply that model to the Tavi, then they would have had to have tracked patients who would have qualified for puberty blockers but decided not to proceed with them, taken them but then decided not to go on to cross sex hormones (the "it's just a pause" hypothesis), and then finally the group that kept going on the full medical transition path. They would need sufficient numbers in each group and they'd need to be keeping an eye on the long term benefits intended by each path.

If what we've been hearing is the whole story, haven't they basically said that ALL of their qualifying patients opted for blockers, and then nearly all of them went on to cross sex hormones? And then that they're not following up with any of them longitudinally?

If that's the case, then that doesn't sound like much of a study. At least, they didn't set out to gather evidence on the effectiveness of puberty blockers being used for the purposes they were prescribing them for.

I forgot that NotBadConsidering.

TartrazineCustard

This explains what they did:

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

Why is the BBC claiming that the Tavistock is appealing? Appeal was denied by High Court

www.bbc.com/news/education-55369784

[quote iguanadonna]Why is the BBC claiming that the Tavistock is appealing? Appeal was denied by High Court

www.bbc.com/news/education-55369784[/quote]
They are appealing directly to the court of appeal

Astonishingly JM is "pleased to confirm" they're appealing, presumably because his GLP funds are now being thrown at the appeal so he's on the inside now He is way too invested.

What happens if they get their arse handed to them again if they go to an appeal? Is that over then?

They're asking the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal, but has the CoA said it will?

It seems that all that has happened is that the Tavistock may have applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal (previous attempt in High Court was unsuccessful). The deadline for this new attempt to get an appeal hearing was today. It'll be a while before the CoA even decides whether to hear an appeal. That's a very long way from 'The Tavistock is appealing' and makes the BBC article seriously misleading.

Maugham is also saying the Tavistock are appealing. A QC should be more accurate

Ground 4. The Divisional Court has not improperly restricted the decision in Gillick. It has sought to apply the requirements of Gillick to the treatment in the present case.

Bloody good to see this in such plain writing, though we knew it was true anyway. They will still misrepresent it though. Like Jolyon and his constant 'no transkids were included!!!' despite proof they were.