NEW: Grounds in support of intervention in the Bell v Tavistock JR appeal published

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1354002497753538562?s=19

This is going to fascinating to follow.

GIRES, Stonewall, Brooks and the Endocrine society are intervening.

The endocrine society that is one of the intervening parties is American (as maya Forstater says in her twitter thread). I looked up the British organisation. Their twitter is soc_endo and they have never tweeted about trans health care as far as I could find, and there is hardly anything about it on their web site. It's like they are keeping out of it, online at least. Jolyan went to an American based organisation instead.

@InvisibleDragon

It seems like the argument is based on some sort of Schrödinger's child - simultaneously so fragile they will attempt suicide and so emotionally sophisticated they can consent to experimental medical procedures that a normal child could not understand.

True. The stuff about stonewall & gendered intelligence have experience supporting children & they know that these children have special insight that means they can make this decision really creeped me out. That reads like adults who have lost sight of something quite important about children and childhood as a life stage.

I agree with pp who was surprised that these orgs can follow the logic from this to consent regarding abortion, but don't follow the logic that there are unintended consequences to agreeing that children in general can't consent to something, but actually these specific children can consent, because they have a special understanding.

It reads like it's influence by activist parents - they need this to be true. My child can consent to this because they have a special insight. It hasn't been done to them without consent. It's only a theoretical possibility that a child would make a mistake.

I looked up the British organisation. Their twitter is soc_endo and they have never tweeted about trans health care as far as I could find, and there is hardly anything about it on their web site. It's like they are keeping out of it, online at least

I imagine that there could be a potential conflict of interest between the 2 groups of clinicians (endocrinologists and GIDS clinicians) especially if they are both saying that it is the other ones who should have been gaining the consent of the child. Also it is likely that some of the prescribing endocrinologists were members of the UK Society for Endocrinology and this could mean that if they supported the idea that it is the endocrinologists who should have been gaining consent and they haven't in practice been doing this then they would potentially be going against their own member's interests.

I may be misremembering, but I think it was some British endocrinologists who did the whistleblowing on the Webberleys.

Re the quoted passage in the attached image: the Tavistock cannot give this evidence, neither can any other clinic. All of them decided that the gold standard experimental model, with a randomised control group (so split all suitable patients into two randomised groups, one on PBs, the other using watchful waiting with psychological support) was unethical.

The evidence for that stance is as dubious as all the rest, and I’d be very suspicious that they didn’t want to make that comparison as there’s a strong likelihood it would demonstrate that PBs don’t help.

Sorry, useless image. It’s 16, subsection 4: The effects of PBs

@BuntingEllacott

You do not have to be remotely tin foil hatted to know that the argument that some children are wise beyond their years and therefore able to consent has horrendous provenance.

This post really has brought it home, the sort of mindset we're being confronted with, and I really hope it isn't deleted

I have said this before, but if they are so absolutely certain that PB and then CSH are the right path then surely having to go to court to gain the consent for this shouldn't be an issue. No one is depriving children of healthcare (or whatever is claimed in tweets) just ensuring that the treatment is the correct one.

Why would people be against this?

Reading the CQC report on the Tavistock endocrine clinics it seems that the endocrinologists insist on the consent of the child's parent/guardian as well as the consent of the child.

If the endocrinologists thought the child had the capability to independently consent why would that be necessary? A parent is not asked to give consent before a Gillick competent minor can access contraception or have an abortion.

Presumably this why at was stated at the JR that it is the parent who is liable in the case of regret and not the endocrinologist.

Perhaps the appeal might be able to call trans people in their late 20's and early 30's who were the early days patients to receive blockers. It'd be such a shame if their voices were ignored as much as their birth genitalia.

Perhaps the appeal might be able to call trans people in their late 20's and early 30's who were the early days patients to receive blockers.

They wouldn't be that old, would they? The Tavistock only started their experimental treatment on under 16s in 2010.

www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers/

But you seem to have misunderstood what the judicial review was about. It was about the ability of children to consent to treatment which would have a profound effect on their sexual function and fertility as adults.

You could present dozens of 'happy adults who transitioned as children', but this wouldn't prove that children could give informed consent to treatment at an age when they are too young and immature to have the capacity to fully understand all the effects of that treatment.

Leaving aside the subject matter of the case, isn’t there something very, very dodgy about a US organisation trying to influence U.K. medical law, specifically re: NHS funded drug prescriptions?

OldCrone -

We can quibble about ages but, our voices will be heard. There is little misunderstanding. We struggled, we were offered help, we took it and we now live happier lives. For many of us, our sexual function is wonderful, not that it's any of your business. Personally, I'm always disappointed that GC's are so hooked up on my capability to achieve orgasm. Perhpaps you guys need help.

As for dozens of happy adults, I imagine it would prove that the decisions we made at the time, in company with our parents, the Dr's and the Endo's in the main with the odd exception have been beneficial.

Of course, the court has so far only heard from one of us. Maybe you guys will be able to genuinely advise those who have had a positive experience where our experience is all wrong?

I'm pretty certain Gillick competence doesn't work like that. A minor who consented to an abortion, and then when she was grown up regretted it, wouldn't alter the competence to have consented.

And didn't the judges read the testimony of 70 children, not just one. Isn't that right? Transgendertrend, I believe, provided the testimony of dozens.

Some arguments remind me of Tatchell's comments about some people's experiences being things which brought them great joy. I don't want to be more specific than that, because I'm not making accusations, but it's a mark of failing to understand that it makes no odds if you find an adult who felt they had suffered no harm and indeed felt joy from something they had no capacity to consent to.

That's not how capacity to consent works with children. That's not what gillick competency is.

Datun - Gillick competence is applied to an individual person. The ruling overstepped that mark by suggesting that no under 16 could reasonably consent to a particular treatment without the intervention of a judge.

Admittedly, it was a shockingly poor defence by the Tavistock but perhaps one that they wanted. Maybe an appeal will hear some voices that matter.

@statsgeek1

Datun - Gillick competence is applied to an individual person. The ruling overstepped that mark by suggesting that no under 16 could reasonably consent to a particular treatment without the intervention of a judge.

Admittedly, it was a shockingly poor defence by the Tavistock but perhaps one that they wanted. Maybe an appeal will hear some voices that matter.

They did hear voices. The Tavistock had nothing to convince the judges.

You're expecting children to understand the implication of adult sterility and limited sex life. They cant.

”Maybe an appeal will hear some voices that matter.”

De-transitioners don’t matter??

Gillick competence is applied to an individual person. The ruling overstepped that mark by suggesting that no under 16 could reasonably consent to a particular treatment without the intervention of a judge.

That's not what the judgment says. It says that given the highly experimental nature of the treatment and the serious side-effects, judges will need to consider on an individual basis whether a child under 16 who wants puberty blockers is competent to make that decision (applying the criteria in Gillick) before they are prescribed, rather than just relying on GIDS' shoddy assessments of competence.

Have you read the judgment?

molesmokes - I didn't suggest de-transitioners voices don't matter. I'm quite uncomfortable with judgements that affect the many being based on the few though.

Datun - The Tavistock provided a shocking defence. I don't expect anything other than a scenario where children are allowed to live their lives in comfort.

”I’m quite uncomfortable with judgements that affect the many being based on the few though”

You will be “uncomfortable” then with judgements that affect 99% of the population being based on the demands of 1%?

Datun - The Tavistock provided a shocking defence.

Well yes. And given the three judges read thousands of pages of evidence, one cant help concluding that there's a very good reason for their 'shocking defence'.

MOLESMOKES -

Of course not. That said, i'm finding it quite difficult to understand how helping under 200 children per year(out of round 600,000 live births) will have such an effect on the other 599970.

Of course, the court has so far only heard from one of us.

Have you read the judgment? I've just been looking at it and there are witness statements from two people who were treated by the Tavistock as children as well as one child on the waiting list who was prescribed puberty blockers by GenderGP.

Paragraphs 85 and 86: 'J', a 'transgender man' aged 20. Paragraph 87: 'S', a 13 year old 'trans boy'. Paragraph 88: 'N', an 18 year old 'trans woman'.

'J', who was prescribed puberty blockers aged 12 said: “I was certain I would never want to carry a child and give birth. ... We discussed sex and I told them the idea of it disgusted me.”

'S', a 13-year-old already on puberty blockers said: "I haven’t really thought about parenthood ... I just have no idea what me in the future is going to think. I haven’t had a romantic relationship and it’s just not a thing that is really on my radar at the moment.”

These are children making decisions about their adult lives through the understanding of a child. It's perfectly normal for pre-pubescent children to find the idea of sex disgusting and not to be thinking about romantic relationships or the possibility of having children later in life. This doesn't mean that they have an adult understanding of these things or that they are competent to consent to treatment which will affect these aspects of their lives as adults.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

statsgeek1 - if a child is found by the Court to be competent, they will be allowed puberty blockers. If a child is not competent then they will not be.

Are you arguing that puberty blockers should be prescribed to children who are not competent because in your view it will work out for the best in many cases? I just want to understand if I've understood your point.

Datun - Of course, you're right. They did not hear from a single trans person out of the hundreds that had gone on to a happy life post blockers. Alternatively, out of that several hundred we can assume they all desisted?

It'd also be nice to hear a 'proper challenge' as to the veracity of the expert witnesses. Of course, I'm sure you have little to worry about so we'll have to just wait and see.