GIDS granted permission to appeal

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

twitter.com/BenInLDN/status/1351184741828067330?s=20

I think it's rare for new evidence to be allowed, isn't it? So it looks like they're stuck with their shitty reasoning and 'evidence' of the first hearing.

Gems such as ''if the patients lose their sexual function, it's alright because they might have turned out to be asexual anyway.' 'Some 12 year olds have sex, so do understand what they're signing away.' 'Girls can just freeze their eggs' (as if that's brings no risks and trauma, and no mention of whether they explain the costs involved of renting a woman's womb later on.)

Yeah...they must love being publicly humiliated or something, I don't think I'd be able to show my face again after the first circus. I sure as shit wouldn't be so eager to sign up for round 2.

Thanks, Charley, that's cleared it up.

Some of the replies on that twitter thread are sickening: 🤪 GiVe ThE KiDs ThE DrUgS oR tHeY'lL kIlL tHeMsElVeS 🤪

If there are good reasons and evidence that will stand up under law as to why the activists have this right, then we all need to know them and fill in the holes in the arguments that are the reason for the concerns and the court judgement.

If they don't stand up under law and cannot be used to justify this way of managing children with dysphoria than we all need to know that too.

It has to be established, publicly, legally, beyond all doubt, as to what the right answers are.

I would've been surprised if the appeal wasn't allowed. I agree that the evidence must be thoroughly scrutinized and tested, to ensure the best possible care is given to those children who are affected. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence of what is being treated by the blocking of puberty, and likewise whether the outcomes of doing so are beneficial.

The case was about informed consent, wasn't it, so surely the benefits and side effects of PBs were important to the case, because the children would need to understand it all to consent?

Foxy Kimono's still having trouble with coherent thought, then?

It will be interesting to see it proven how three judges failed apparently so very badly.

This has come through from Keira via the gardening page:

"Earlier today it was confirmed that the Tavistock have been granted permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. There are two grounds on which they can be granted permission; realistic prospect of success or some other compelling reason. The appeal has been granted on the latter. The Court of Appeal is interested in the Tavistock’s position that the judgement in Gillick has not been properly followed by the Divisional Court... We remain disappointed that the Tavistock is trying to overturn the rightful judgement that was made at the High Court last month."

As for Jolyon Fox-Killer huffing and puffing about “benefits of puberty blockers” (tweet attached by yourhairiswinterfire) . . .

Very difficult to prove the “benefits” of a medically invasive, high-risk, life-changing pre-pubertal treatment resulting in developmental delay, for a condition that:

• can only be diagnosed post-puberty

• when over 80% of pre-pubertal children desist if left to experience natural puberty

• when existing research relates primarily to pre-pubertal boys experiencing gender dysphoria from an early age whereas the massive boom in children self-diagnosing as “gender dysphoric” is due to the “ROGD phenomenon” experienced primarily by adolescent girls.

The justification for blocking the puberty of girls for “cosmetic” reasons holds no water since it stunts growth and makes it less rather than more likely that they will “pass” after taking testosterone.

Even if it were technically possible for a pre-pubertal child to be able to give “informed consent” the information is simply not there at the basic level of diagnosis.

The most that the child could be told is, ”It is very unlikely that these drugs will help you. It is much more likely that they will hurt you. Out of 10 children just like you, only two might be helped - the other eight will be harmed by the drugs forever in ways that you cannot even begin to imagine.”

”Debate: Different strokes for different folks”
Kenneth J. Zucker
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

A gender social transition in prepubertal children is a form of psychosocial treatment that aims to reduce gender dysphoria, but with the likely consequence of subsequent (lifelong) biomedical treatments as well (gender-affirming hormonal treatment and surgery).

Gender social transition of prepubertal children will increase dramatically the rate of gender dysphoria persistence when compared to follow-up studies of children with gender dysphoria who did not receive this type of psychosocial intervention and, oddly enough, might be characterized as iatrogenic.

Parents who bring their children for clinical care hold different philosophical views on what is the best way to help reduce the gender dysphoria, which require both respect and understanding.

Full text at:
www.researchgate.net/publication/333516085_Debate_Different_strokes_for_different_folks

What a child can even less give informed consent to is:

• an “Affirmative Approach” involving “Social Transition” that creates the “persistent, insistence” that is used to justify considering puberty blockers

• “reparative” aka “conversion” therapy that equally focuses on a symptom, “gender confusion”, rather than the child

To do either is completely at odds with normal psychotherapeutic practice.

”Is ‘affirmation’ an appropriate approach to childhood gender dysphoria?”
By Stephanie Davies-Arai

”The ‘gender affirmative’ model, or ‘affirmation,’ is an experimental approach towards children and young people with gender dysphoria. It is not a model which has been informed and developed through clinical research and evidence but one which has been promoted by transgender lobby groups and activists. The established global model of care for children with gender dysphoria is a ‘watch and wait’ approach which does not steer a child towards any pre-determined outcome, but recognises developmental change as an intrinsic part of childhood and adolescence.”

Full text

www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2399-B-Transgender-Children-WEB.pdf

Other detransitioners, mostly female, who transitioned as children and adolescents are speaking out.

Their experiences are far more relevant than those of adults, mostly male, who transitioned late in life and who advocate for transitioning children as early as possible.

”A Message of Hope for Dysphoric Young People, From Five Anonymous Detransitioners”

”1. Time is not your enemy when it comes to medical transition. Young people with gender dysphoria are routinely presented with media that normalizes suicidal behavior. However, the reality is it’s more common for trans people to create the foundation for their medical transitions by first building their adult lives- finding a preferred career, building financial resources, and building adult support networks. Medical and social transition are tricky, expensive projects to pull off, and often having the benefit of adult insight and resources assists people in pulling it off successfully.”

Continued at
a-message-of-hope.com/2020/12/17/a-message-of-hope-for-dysphoric-young-people-from-five-anonymous-detransitioners/

The case was about informed consent, wasn't it, so surely the benefits and side effects of PBs were important to the case, because the children would need to understand it all to consent?

I would like to know more about this too.

If the question is simply: Can children and teens give consent to a treatment that may affect later fertility and sexual function? Then I think the answer would be Yes, as children can consent to chemotherapy. But in that case there is a major proven benefit i.e. not dying of cancer.

However if the question is: Can children and teens give informed consent to a treatment that may affect later fertility and sexual function, when there is little or no evidence of benefit? Then I think the answer may be No, as the child/teen is too young to understand the balance of (substantial) harms versus (negligible/uncertain) benefits.

An additional question would be whether the Tavi were providing patients with accurate information on benefits and harms to enable them to give informed consent, and I suspect the answer to that may be No.

That's extremely hopeful that the appeal wasn't granted on realistic prospect of success! So the court of appeal doesn't think there is a realistic prospect of success?

It also makes it a bit weird though. What's the point of it then?

AnotherLass clarifying a point of law. Courts like the chance to do that. They might not be particularly interested in the details of a case, only that it serves a purpose in clarifying.

@MoleSmokes

AnotherLass clarifying a point of law. Courts like the chance to do that. They might not be particularly interested in the details of a case, only that it serves a purpose in clarifying.

So it could be that the court wants to give the Tavistock a public lesson on consent/gillick?

Is it likely they'll be aware of certain lawyers and media outlets misleading the public and telling porkies, such as the judgement 'destroys abortion rights for girls'?

In the Order of the High Court refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal, point 3 is as follows:

The implementation of the Order is stayed until 4 p.m. on 22 December 2020. In the event that the Defendant or the First and Second Interveners apply by 4 p.m. on 22 December for: (a) permission to appeal; and (b) for a continuation of this stay pending appeal if permission is granted, this stay shall continue until the Court of Appeal determines whether to grant both permission to appeal and the stay as applied for.

It's likely the operation of the High Court decision will be stayed and so the previous practices of the Tavistock could be continued. However, any responsible medical practitioner, or one with an interest in self-preservation, will know that encouraging children to start or continue down the medical pathway to sterilisation in the current circumstances could see them in front of a tribunal at some point in the future.

Perhaps a side issue, but given that it is known people on steroids are clinically highly vulnerable to Covid, and testosterone is an anabolic steroid, wouldn’t anyone proposing to take “T”, as it is euphemistically called, need to understand that added risk, and any long term outcomes?

Even without Covid, shouldn’t all adolescents taking steroids understand that steroids are supremely dangerous?

yourhairiswinterfire
Is it likely they'll be aware of certain lawyers and media outlets misleading the public and telling porkies, such as the judgement 'destroys abortion rights for girls'?

I would like to know this too

Even though there's an appeal, the big positive from this case, or series of cases going up to the Supreme Court, is that the medical establishment will have to put their evidence base in front of a court and commit to it while it is forensically examined. This will mean that the medical practitioners won't be able to say in the future "Oh, we didn't mean that!", "No, we didn't believe that!" or "But of course it wasn't our intention that people would do that!".

These experimental and extremes procedures for children were brought in on the quiet, and by the time concerns were being raised loud enough for the media to take an interest, the medical establishment was able to hide behind "everyone has been doing this for ages, of course it will continue" and "it's very complicated, it's too difficult for you to understand and so we're not going to engage with you over this".

The Bell case means that medical practitioners are going to have to own what they're doing. To be responsible for what happens and to be accountable for it. That in itself is a huge improvement.

No If the court has allowed the appeal in order to obtain clarification of a point of law they probably would not give a toss about either side involved.

All that would matter would be the point of law and the court would not and should not have any bias towards one side or the other.

The original case was about informed consent and Gillick Competence in relation to a particular class of treatment, eg. different to treatment for a condition with reliable diagnosis and prognosis such as cancer that would be terminal if left untreated.

The reason I think this might have been allowed as “an interesting case” is that it might clarify the ruling in Gillick, rather than the court having any interest in puberty blockers per se.

Jolyon Fox-killer was arguing that the original case was dangerous as the outcome might affect access to birth control and abortion. He does not seem to be bothered about that risk now.

Quote got detached! That reply was to yourhairiswinterfire

Perhaps a side issue, but given that it is known people on steroids are clinically highly vulnerable to Covid, and testosterone is an anabolic steroid, wouldn’t anyone proposing to take “T”, as it is euphemistically called, need to understand that added risk, and any long term outcomes?

Even without Covid, shouldn’t all adolescents taking steroids understand that steroids are supremely dangerous?

Corticosteroids are different from anabolic steroids. Corticosteroids make people highly vulnerable to infection because they suppress the immune system; anabolic steroids don't work in this way. Obviously they have risks of their own, but they're not the same as the kind of steroids that increase vulnerability to infection.

@MoleSmokes

Quote got detached! That reply was to yourhairiswinterfire

Thanks Mole 😊 Very interesting.

This article has just popped up on my twitter feed from @radfemlawyer

I think its worth a read:

www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/conventional-wisdom-prevails-refusal-consent-medical-treatment-gillick-competent
The conventional wisdom prevails: a refusal to consent to medical treatment by a Gillick competent minor is not determinative

Judgment has today been handed down In the matter of X (A Child) (No 2) [2021] EWHC 65 (Fam) an essential read for the law on consent to medical treatment in relation to those under 16 and those aged 16 and 17.

Its about a minor with sickle cell who is a Jehovah's witness.

It refers to the case Supreme Court of Canada in AC and Others -v- Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) 2009 which if memory serves has popped up elsewhere.

Anyway the ruling of the court seems to strengthen the courts hand and that Gillick competence in under 16 and 16 and 17 years only stretches so far and does not apply where death or serious harm may occur...

Sounds a bit of a problem for the Tavi Appeal this one.

Disappearingirl An additional question would be whether the Tavi were providing patients with accurate information on benefits and harms to enable them to give informed consent, and I suspect the answer to that may be No.
The court looked at the info the children & families were being given. From memory they found that it was reasonable & accurate - they didn't think the fact sheets etc were misrepresenting or withholding info. The issue was that there was no real way for a child of that age to fully comprehend what that actually meant for them, because it related to their potential future life, sex life, & fertility, things that kids can't comprehend.

Lady Justice @readfemlawyer
For those asking about grounds of appeal, that’s still not published. But what we do know is the basis upon which permission was granted by the CoA.

There are two bases on which they can be granted permission; realistic prospect of success or some other compelling reason...

Interestingly, the appeal has been granted on the latter. The Court of Appeal is interested in the Tavistock’s position that the judgement in Gillick has not been properly followed by the Divisional Court

Am i understanding this?

The appeal has been granted on the basis of a legal technicality and not because they think there is merit to it succeeding?