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?

The absolute digging in of the heels over this is astounding. At no point has there been an acknowledgement of the need to look at practice and assurances that they are working within X guidelines (even if they are disagreed with). Instead it is fingers in ears and everyone is so mean.

Sorry, haven't read the full thread but wanted to say this while it's clear in my mind.

As I understand it, the Tavistock has experimentally provided a drug to just-pre- and adolescent people.

This drug has been shown, by data which the Tavistock has collected, to reduce the bone-density of those who take it from the normal for that stage of development.

There is little doubt that reduced bone density in adolescence is directly related to such things as osteoporosis in later life.

Yet this is not a reason immediately to pause the experimental use of this drug in adolescents, as opposed to in the prematurely pubertal children for whom it was designed, until the matter has been fully investigated? Why the fuck not?

I cannot help remembering that recently, when a single individual out of a cohort of 30,000 being given an experimental vaccine suffered what might possibly have been an adverse reaction to that vaccine, that trial was immediately paused for full investigation in spite of the desperate need of millions of people for a working vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Why the double standards?

However, although it looks like a missed opportunity I can't help but think that the Tavistock didn't want to create an evidence base because they suspected it would tell a story that would go against their activities.

I have found myself leaning a little towards..they purposely presented a shitty case so the could hold their hands up and say it wasn't their fault (bt still get t end the experiements), it was the nasty judges, when TRAs start circing like sharks.

And yes, appealing against a ruling that safeguards kids and puts trans peoples medication on the same level as other meds (ie. safe. Understood effects. Proof it helps. Etc) is a horrific look.

Really worth reading, especially the comment on gillick, and the comments on mermaids & stonewall applications to intervene.

Yeah stonewall and mermaids (unsurprisingly) do not come out of this well at all.

I imagine their 'evidence' was along the lines of..'but if we do not ignore medical ethics and give these children exactly what they say they want (often after being coached on the internet ) then loads of transkids will kill themselves'. Or 'but you can't let TT or any other groups besides us intervene, as they are all just hateful people!'. Suicide was almost certainly the main argument though,and certainly would not fly in court, nor should it be constantly repeated. I know I repeated it here though, but I couldn't say what I eat without doing so..

There seems to be so much anger, with the fact that courts deal in facts and evidence, rather than hurt feelings, sulking, abuse, accusations, emotional manipulation and fudging though.

say what I eat?!

meant.

Who tried to submit the same witness twice but under different initials? What a daft blunder!

If I understand Maughams rantings properly (which I may not, as hes not to understandable these days) he claimed said child did not get a voice at all. Rather than admit that the child was refused to give evidence twice. But their evidence was indeed heard, just not twice, understandably! Also claimed 'no trans voices were heard' at all

Minutes from the Good Law Project.
Looks like they're trying to intervine in any appeal and to get theTavistock to allow parental consent.

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/
The intervention will be on behalf of a small group of NGOs who we will name in due course. The intention is to make points that were made inadequately or not at all before the Divisional Court around, in particular, (i) the need to hear what teenagers say about their own lives (ii) the role of parental consent and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision. The Advisory Group believes the decision was wrong and there is a reasonable basis for thinking it can be overturned.

The second commitment arises from the fact that, presently, the Tavistock does not accept that parents can consent to their children having puberty blockers. And the decision in the Bell case means that children cannot consent either. This leads to the situation where the consent of the Court – itself a huge barrier in practice – needs to be sought even in circumstances where a specialist doctor, parent, and child all agree that a treatment is in the child’s best interests.

The Tavistock will be invited – or sought to be compelled – to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent. In practice success on this action would remove, in many or most cases, the practical barrier to treatment posed by the Bell decision.

And here's the Advisory Group
twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1341788682488037384?s=19

C.N. Lester, Prof Alex Lester and Mridul Wadha among them!

Next he could try lying down in the street and kicking and screaming until he gets his way.

"The intervention will be on behalf of a small group of NGOs who we will name in due course. The intention is to make points that were made inadequately or not at all before the Divisional Court around, in particular, (i) the need to hear what teenagers say about their own lives (ii) the role of parental consent and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision:"

They already had child witnesses on behalf of the Tavistock, and the things the kids said were beneficial to the other side. One child said that he hadn't really thought of the idea of dating and sex yet, and another said the idea of sex was disgusting. So they had better make sure the teen witnesses they get stay on script. As for the abortion issue, the court already emphasised repeatedly that this case was limited to the facts of treatment for gender dysphoria. It has no wider implications for abortion.

I think the idea about getting parental consent for this treatment is pretty scary, to be honest - especially when there is evidence that in some cases this is very much being pushed by parents.

The Tavistock will be invited – or sought to be compelled – to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent

Remind me, who is attempting to undermine Gillick?

The logic makes sense - Gillick was being applied correctly, so the only path to do what they want to do to children is to open up a whole new can of worms for which there is possibly no precedent.

They want a ruling that parents can subject a child to medical treatment for which

• there is no firm evidence of its benefits or harm
• the child is not capable of consent due to its long-term impact
• doctors are not prepared to perform purely on the basis of parental consent

And they want to be able to force doctors to do this. (The Tavistock said they could not conceive of treating a child without their consent.)

Kind of scary watching how much people can be corrupted by believing themselves to be righteous. It will be interesting.

It's a Munchausen wet dream what they're saying. It is scary how the righteous cant see it..

Kind of scary watching how much people can be corrupted by believing themselves to be righteous.

The 'right side of history' appears to be aligning with homophobes and paedophiles.

“All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

@RealityNotEssentialism

None of the first instance judges will be able to hear the appeal. It will be heard by three judges in the Court of Appeal (if permission is granted).

It’s very common for the High Court to refuse permission to appeal and isn’t really anything to celebrate. If they had given permission, they would have had to agree that their reasoning was wrong.

I suspect that the Court of Appeal will grant permission. Where I think there is a potential weakness in the case is that the HC explicitly said that the patient must appreciate the implications of not only the current treatment (PB) but also of a future treatment (CSH). That’s where I fear that the Court of Appeal might come to a different conclusion (although there is a further potential appeal to the Supreme Court if so). Hopefully it will be enough for the court that PBs themselves are experimental in nature but I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch so I will be waiting to hear how the appeal application goes.

I also think the COA will grant permission because of the significance of the case and the fact that it hinges on consent/capacity.

It's an interesting point about the need to understand future treatments. The very high concordance between patients who stay on PBs and who go on to CSH must surely be helpful here? If there is a 97% probability that (B) will follow (A), it seems reasonable that you have to understand (B) in order to consent to (A).

I really do hope it does go to appeal. This has to be unpicked to the last decimal place.

Urgh. Thank you for following this everyone. A child who already feels different for whatever reason is only going to have those feelings cemented if they are prescribed ‘pause’ medication that quite literally prevents them from developing normally alongside their peers. PBs are the tool that cements a feeling of difference into an actual physical and developmental reality.
PBs create trans adults by turning the thoughts of confused and traumatized children into reality (yes, you are different to your peers - these drugs made you so) and hampering their intellectual development such that CSH are seen as the ‘cure’. Of course 98% of children go on to take CSH. They have been carefully prepared to be completely physically and mentally isolated from their peers experiencing puberty. With CSH then sold as normalising, which child wouldn’t opt in?
It’s grotesque.

The very high concordance between patients who stay on PBs and who go on to CSH must surely be helpful here? If there is a 97% probability that (B) will follow (A), it seems reasonable that you have to understand (B) in order to consent to (A).

Yes, the original judges very carefully set out why they considered the child would need to know the implications of both treatments. If a child goes on to blockers nearly all progress to csh.

The Tavistocks own report confirms this to be true. Its a medical pathway, not separate treatments.

and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision

Would love to know why on earth this line keeps being pushed, despite the judgement specifically saying it will not affect anything else. I would love to know the justification for outright lying in order to whip up a frenzy.

to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent.

And this..well surely it would make no difference given a large part of the reasoning that children cannot consent was that the effects are unknown, so even professionals are unlikely to understand them, so how would a parent be able to if noone else can? Therefor, parental consent argument out the window surely? Unless I am understanding this wrong anyway, law is really not my area..

Excellent explanation @nachthexe

No way should a parent be allowed to make these decisions for kids.

@nachthexe

Urgh. Thank you for following this everyone. A child who already feels different for whatever reason is only going to have those feelings cemented if they are prescribed ‘pause’ medication that quite literally prevents them from developing normally alongside their peers. PBs are the tool that cements a feeling of difference into an actual physical and developmental reality. PBs create trans adults by turning the thoughts of confused and traumatized children into reality (yes, you are different to your peers - these drugs made you so) and hampering their intellectual development such that CSH are seen as the ‘cure’. Of course 98% of children go on to take CSH. They have been carefully prepared to be completely physically and mentally isolated from their peers experiencing puberty. With CSH then sold as normalising, which child wouldn’t opt in? It’s grotesque.

This is an article about one child's experience.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-children-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-the-past-four-years-i-ve-been-stuck-as-a-child-5s6tkh7z2

archive.vn/G3WXC

@MichelleofzeResistance

I really do hope it does go to appeal. This has to be unpicked to the last decimal place.

Same. Let's have it.

@VulvaPerson

and (iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision

Would love to know why on earth this line keeps being pushed, despite the judgement specifically saying it will not affect anything else. I would love to know the justification for outright lying in order to whip up a frenzy.

IMO, for fund-raising purposes. To scare ignorant, naive (mostly American) women into agreeing with them, and thinking the judgment or criticism of Tavistock is coming from right-wingers who are after reproductive rights. I've seen several Americans assume this.