GIDS granted permission to appeal

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

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

Is the scourge of foxes no longer bothered about gillick & whether the ruling will undermine abortion rights etc? I'm blocked so am wondering what he witters about now, if glp plan to intervene in the appeal I wonder what they will argue.

Many interesting and informative comments here. Thanks, FWR legal eagles -- I always learn from these threads.

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!", "... Medical practitioners are going to have to own what they're doing. To be responsible for what happens and to be accountable for it.

Yes. So much sunlight pouring in. Magnificent work by Keira and Mrs A and all their helpers.

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.

One of the legal commentators I read picked up on this. The judgment actually says:

Ms Morris submitted it is not for this court to determine clinical disagreements between experts about the efficacy of a treatment. We agree. That is a matter for the relevant NHS and regulatory bodies to oversee and to decide. However the degree to which the treatment is experimental and has, as yet, an unknown impact, does go to the critical issue of whether a young person can have sufficient understanding of the risks and benefits to be able lawfully to consent to that treatment.

It's all about the lack of evidence of efficacy in the judgment. How can the child understand in that situation? It's not clear how they would deal with evidence of lack of efficacy.

In a potential (and I think likely) future situation "there are several of studies showing puberty blockers don't work, but there are private doctors willing to prescribe them, and children caught up with groups saying they need them", then what?

And also, what about the parental consent thing? The court totally skipped that issue, because the Tavistock said they wouldn't do it, but then that Leeds hospital(?) and another popped up saying, "well we'd like to".

I wonder if maybe the Supreme Court isn't happy with some of the fuzziness here.

This refers to the grounds of appeal that were submitted to the High Court

Very interesting Tired, thanks.

The case was about informed consent, wasn't it

Yep. JM would only need to read the grounds for rejection of the initial appeal to know that what he just said was bobbins.

I suppose the poor thing must find all that legalese hard to follow.

It's not clear how they would deal with evidence of lack of efficacy.

In a way they amount to the same thing.

The data released by GIDS the day after the judgement only reinforces the courts decision because it shows no positive effect on MN, let alone efficacy.

there are several of studies showing puberty blockers don't work, but there are private doctors willing to prescribe them

Think is, there is already law on this. We have a medical profession which is supposed to regulate this. Once this appeal is done they will have little excuse not to act.

So who exactly is pushing for appeal and who in the NHS would have signed off on pouring more money into this case?

@2fallsagain

So who exactly is pushing for appeal and who in the NHS would have signed off on pouring more money into this case?

Is it being funded by the NHS?

I also sense that if they don't appeal they are wide open to claims so someone may have thought it to be worth spending money to try and close that door, even if it is unsuccessful because the alternative is that much worse.

I've had a look through and wonder if they're hoping to get something going on parental consent and arguing about stonewall & mermaids not giving evidence. In regards to parental consent, the case was about child consent. I think Tavistock itself had concerns about parental consent (this might have been in their subsequent report). There is of course the argument that parental consent over the courts is questionable in cases where the drugs and treatment are experimental. If they were to succeed on this ground, the Tavi would have to change its procedures to a much longer wait and see period and a lot more talking therapy in order to re-assure the courts as well as the public.

As for Stonewall and Mermaids, it looks like a non-starter.

I think Tavi didn't have a strong enough case (safeguarding seemed to have been thrown in the bin) as has often been said and it seems Stonewall & Mermaids have a lose grip on reality and on legal proceedings.

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.

I don't think they will. IIRC the Tavistock were criticised by the judges for acting as if informed consent was just a matter of giving the children enough information and them understanding it.

The court disagreed that the children could give informed consent because of the experimental nature of the drugs, because of the lack of evidence underpinning their use and because they're too young to understand the long term risks and consequences. So, no amount of information, or improved quality of information, could ever get them to a point at which they could give informed consent.

@highame

I've had a look through and wonder if they're hoping to get something going on parental consent and arguing about stonewall & mermaids not giving evidence. In regards to parental consent, the case was about child consent. I think Tavistock itself had concerns about parental consent (this might have been in their subsequent report). There is of course the argument that parental consent over the courts is questionable in cases where the drugs and treatment are experimental. If they were to succeed on this ground, the Tavi would have to change its procedures to a much longer wait and see period and a lot more talking therapy in order to re-assure the courts as well as the public.

As for Stonewall and Mermaids, it looks like a non-starter.

I think Tavi didn't have a strong enough case (safeguarding seemed to have been thrown in the bin) as has often been said and it seems Stonewall & Mermaids have a lose grip on reality and on legal proceedings.

It'd be a bit odd if they went down the parental consent route after being do clear that they never ask for parental consent.

Does Gender GP allow parental consent? If so wee may see this tested in court before too long (if GGP aren't prosecuted for other dodgy practices first like -allegedly - pretending to practice in Spain while being in the UK really. This is just a rumour but if true I would hope they can be hauled before a court for it).

Sorry, my post was during page 1 and hadn't realised there was more info. coffee hand't kicked in. Just ignore.

I think Tavi didn't have a strong enough case (safeguarding seemed to have been thrown in the bin) as has often been said and it seems Stonewall & Mermaids have a lose grip on reality and on legal proceedings.

We're back to it appearing to seem that some activists, including Stonewall and Mermaid, feel ownership of the Tavi and feel that they should have taken the case on their behalf and been able to be the lead people in it. Which would suggest that they see the Tavi less as the experts, than as those who do what they are told to do by those who know better, and who failed to make the case they were sent to make. Which would tie up rather with what many of the whistleblowers were saying.

Lets do it. Facts create reality, not emotion. The only outcome I am attached to is a logical, thorough set of facts that stand up and objectively prove the required outcome to required legal standard. Children deserve nothing less.

The data released by GIDS the day after the judgement only reinforces the courts decision because it shows no positive effect on MN, let alone efficacy.

So the drugs are used to attempt to address a mental health issue, of which there is no evidence of success. Their current use also prevents the addressing of other underlying mh issues.

So what improvement IS being achieved for these children?

Is the only remaining aim in using puberty blockers just to achieve a change in appearance?

After reading about these issues for years, I've come to the conclusion that one significant purpose of puberty blockers is to permanently embed gender dysphoria into some children, including those children having a temporary period of suffering something that presents like gender dysphoria.

Is the only remaining aim in using puberty blockers just to achieve a change in appearance?

I think so garden For boys. The focus always seems to be on boys and getting them to 'pass' better when they're older.

Irreversible changes that come with puberty is the excuse activists use to justify the use of PB's. But, as mentioned on another thread a while ago, female puberty causes no irreversible changes. Transmen who didn't take PB's 'pass' extremely well, because there's no ''damage to undo''.

That study (was it Tavi's own, I get muddled) showed that girls mental health becomes worse after PB's.

So why the hell are they even an option for girls in the first place?

Does Gender GP allow parental consent?

This is what GenderGP say on their website

We can look to ask someone else to make that decision for them. In this instance we would look at whether there is a legal power of attorney in place, or someone with parental responsibility. In some cases we might need to ask the courts to help with the decision.

www.gendergp.com/a-question-of-consent-gillick-competency-transgender-kids-puberty-blockers/

As an aside, why do they mention 'legal power of attorney'? Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it only adults that can have a POA?

A parent 'consenting' to carry out a medical procedure on a minor which they know carries a significant risk of harm?

How does that work when its the states duty to prevent unnecessary harm to minors unlike they are the age to make decisions about their health themselves?

ponders

*until

Given that they can still go ahead if they get a court's permission what would they be asking for exactly? Will they say "we should be allowed to experiment on children without anyone watching us to see if we're doing it for the right reasons!"

Sounds tricky to justify to me.

The "Our Duty" group are saying on twitter that the appeal is actually going to be heard in 10 days time. That's a bit of an advance on 2022

@AnotherLass

The "Our Duty" group are saying on twitter that the appeal is actually going to be heard in 10 days time. That's a bit of an advance on 2022

Someone has corrected them-apparently it's a 'directions hearing to discuss management of the appeal'.

They've deleted the tweet. It is apparently a directions hearing to discuss the appeal not the appeal date.

@nauticant

After reading about these issues for years, I've come to the conclusion that one significant purpose of puberty blockers is to permanently embed gender dysphoria into some children, including those children having a temporary period of suffering something that presents like gender dysphoria.

Indeed.

"Affirmative therapy" -> Puberty blockers -> Life-long cash-cows for the medico-pharmaceutical and cosmetic surgery industry.

WPATH standards or "guidelines" created by vested interests, including surgeons and psychologists who are late-transitioners, recommending that children as young as 18 months should be put on the trans train to sterilisation, experimental drugs and invasive surgery.

"Follow the Money: Pritzker Money All The Way, Baby!"

Video description

Did you ever wonder how this issue got so hot so fast? Update: Thanks for the information that WBEZ (91.5) in Chicago is funded by the Pritzker Foundation!!

Not in any particular order:

READ THIS FIRST: Shattered Dynasty:
www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/05/andrews200305

THIS WAS LEFT OUT OF VIDEO BUT IMPORTANT: The Pritzker Center at UCSF Launched (WITH $25 MILLION DONATION FROM PRITZKER):
www.ucsf.edu/news/2007/05/102355/pritzker-center-ucsf-launched

Federalist article, "Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?:"
thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

lmao can't believe I missed THIS: Eddie Izzard replaces Holocaust row discipline chief on Labour’s ruling council:
www.thesun.co.uk/news/5948085/eddie-izzard-replaces-christine-shawcroft-labour/

James Pritzker donates $25 million to Norwich U.:
www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130429/BLOGS03/130429801/james-pritzker-donates-25-million-to-norwich-u

The Gender & Sex Development Program at Lurie Children’s:
www.luriechildrens.org/en/specialties-conditions/gender-identity-children/

Pritzker daughter sues family:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-11-28-0211300265-story.html

Major Donation Will Improve, Sustain Sexual Health Research and Care:
www.sexualhealth.umn.edu/news/major-donation-will-improve-sustain-sexual-health-research-and-care

Youth & Opportunity United:
youthopportunity.org

Tawani Foundation:
www.tawanifoundation.org/our-grants/

Rush First Illinois Medical Center to Offer Employees Transgender Health Coverage:
www.rush.edu/news/press-releases/rush-first-state-offer-transgender-health-coverage

J.B. Pritzker: The Other Mayor of Chicago:
archive.is/hAi98 (original link does not work)

Norwich University, Nation’s Oldest Private Military College, To Hold First Gay Pride Week:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/norwich-university-gay-pride-week_n_1379728?ri18n=true

Obama Defends Transgender Directive for School Bathrooms:
www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/obama-defends-transgender-directive-for-school-bathrooms.html

The Wachowskis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis#Lilly's_gender_transition

Northwestern, Lurie team up to offer transgender teens voice training:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-transgender-voice-training-20150619-story.html

Who’s on guest list for state dinner in honour of Justin Trudeau (hint: Penny Pritzker):
www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/10/whos-on-guest-list-for-state-dinner-in-honour-of-justin-trudeau.html

For the first time ever, transgender models will appear on a cover of Harper’s Bazaar:
metro.co.uk/2016/09/21/for-the-first-time-ever-transgender-models-will-appear-on-a-cover-of-harpers-bazaar-6142555/?ito=cbshare

Trans Billionaire Gives to U of T’s Bonham Centre:
magazine.utoronto.ca/campus/trans-billionaire-gives-to-u-of-ts-bonham-centre-for-sexual-diversity-studies-jennifer-pritzker-margaret-webb/

Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuse:
sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/gender-identity-development-service-for-children-rated-inadequate