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.

Out of all the interveners I don't really understand why an American org was granted intervention? Surely being a foreign org with conflicting interests to the UK medical model should be grounds for refusal.

Yes, I agree nauticant, that's my thought too. They look like they're letting lots of interested parties have their say for a reason.

Sunlight sunlight sunlight. Let them have their say. Let it be detoxified.

It's looking more and more to me that the (only?) way to defeat this gender-woo bullshit is in our courts.

Each court case that comes along fills me with hope.

I am not going to be too positive at this stage. You can never tell what will happen and I would be very suspect of anyone telling me the case was already won. Look how cautious Keira's supporters were after the trial, even though, when we read the evidence we were staggered at the poor quality from Tavi

Hard to imagine why BMA would want to intervene.
It would be quite weird and frankly arrogant for a doctors' trade union to demand that GIDs should continue to prescribe Triptorelin off-label to kids when the original JR included statements from international experts, so perhaps they are not as captured as they seem?

Paragraphs 85-86 of the judgement is a testimony from a 20 year old year old FtM TM who was prescribed PBs at 12 years old. Decided not to have egg preservation.

"We discussed sex and I told them the idea of it disgusted me. I knew I would be unable to consider having a sexual relationship as an adult with my body so wrongly formed"

This is heartbreaking. A 12 year old making decisions with huge, irreversible, impact on the rest of tbeir lives. Of course they cannot understand how they may feel about an impaired sex life or inability to have children of their own.

They're a 12 year old child.

A 12 year old making decisions with huge, irreversible, impact on the rest of tbeir lives. Of course they cannot understand how they may feel about an impaired sex life or inability to have children of their own.

The judges' decision was that a child aged under 16 couldn't understand such adult concepts, because they have no experience of such things, and also lack the mental and physical maturity to imagine the impact of the effects of hormonal treatments on this aspect of their lives.

I'm looking forward to the interventions of those who believe that children do have a full, mature and adult understanding of these things. Not least because where that leads to is ... interesting.

@highame

I am not going to be too positive at this stage. You can never tell what will happen and I would be very suspect of anyone telling me the case was already won. Look how cautious Keira's supporters were after the trial, even though, when we read the evidence we were staggered at the poor quality from Tavi

I agree. Maya's case outcome was genuinely shocking after what had come before.

If there's been an error in law and the appeal can prove it, then it should be proved. There is no point at all in trying to verify proper, ethical standards for children's care in law if it's based on faulty law. And that is what the appeal is about, isn't it? Not fresh evidence, but that the judges in the initial case did something wrong and their judgement is not sound.

If it's not sound then it shouldn't stand.

In my experience as a lawyer, courts tend, if in doubt, to let a party intervene.

As someone said, much better to give them the chance to put forward their arguments than for them to be able to say they were wrongly denied that opportunity.

They can put forward no new evidence, they can not make oral submissions. All they can do is repeat their tired old arguments in writing (without putting forward evidence).

So what are they, in reality, are they going to say? They will make the usual bald assertions without any evidence base: which is the key point about this whole litigation.

Theories in medicine are meaningless without data.

I remain very hopeful.

If it's not sound then it shouldn't stand.

Agree.

Theories in medicine are meaningless without data.

I know its different because it relates to an approval process, not a court decision, but this case makes me think of the German decision not to give the Oxford vaccine to over 65s.

Germany have made their decision because they believe current evidence doesn't show the vaccine to be effective, however as other countries will continue to use the vaccine that data will become available, and presumably their decision could change.

Regardless of what we think, the UK court decision does not prevent other countries from using PBs on young children, and if more data becomes available to prove that their decision was wrong, presumably they would change their decision (assuming the appeal is unsuccessful). However, for that to happen, there would need to be a will to collect data and allow research - and at the moment that seems to be a stumbling block.

One thing the Keira Bell decision does is to turn the stumbling block from what everyone else comfortably goes along with into having to consciously choose to avoid gathering the data which it's now clear needs to be gathered.

There must surely be some ethical medical practitioners working in this field who will start running things so they can start gathering the data. If will be extraordinarily telling if no one steps forward to fill the evidence gap.

In my experience as a lawyer, courts tend, if in doubt, to let a party intervene

Which is why it is so entertaining that Stonewall were not given permission...

Of course the other possibility with the Oxford vaccine is that that the Germans turn out to be right, but either way we will find out because no serious scientist suggests that collecting data on vaccines is 'anti-vax'.

From memory, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to proper collation of research data and tracking groups for 5, 10, 15 years etc (and really this would need to go much longer into mature adulthood to be certain of perceptions and medical outcomes throughout later life) is that it would require a randomly selected control group who were not given blockers but supported in other ways. This is regarded as too cruel to countenance.

Practical challenges to this would also be likely. Since the Tavistock often talks about the pressure coming from parents and families for blockers as well as the child (and where this pressure and leadership for parents originates is also a factor to consider) it would be difficult to maintain a randomly selected group who did not seek blockers online or from other sources and were willing to accept other treatments but not blockers. A self selected volunteer group would not give the same quality of data that this would require.

As with many aspects of the politics around the ideology, it's been allowed to paint itself into a bit of a corner.

If it's unethical to build an evidence base to support the validity of a particular treatment, then eventually medical practitioners will have to discuss this openly and decide what it means in terms of continuing to apply the treatment.

Or they could continue to avoid discussing this in the hope that no one notices or that something turns up.

You can see why "no debate" is fundamental to the gender identity ideology.

Have I got this right, is their appeal partly based on Gillick competence?
If a child can legally request an abortion at 13 then are they arguing that they must also have the capacity to consent to beta-blockers.
The two situations are so different though.
There's no equivalence or the legislation that stops children smoking and having tattoos would not be allowed to co-exist with Gillick competence.

@merrymouse

Theories in medicine are meaningless without data.

I know its different because it relates to an approval process, not a court decision, but this case makes me think of the German decision not to give the Oxford vaccine to over 65s.

Germany have made their decision because they believe current evidence doesn't show the vaccine to be effective, however as other countries will continue to use the vaccine that data will become available, and presumably their decision could change.

Regardless of what we think, the UK court decision does not prevent other countries from using PBs on young children, and if more data becomes available to prove that their decision was wrong, presumably they would change their decision (assuming the appeal is unsuccessful). However, for that to happen, there would need to be a will to collect data and allow research - and at the moment that seems to be a stumbling block.

I think that is a red herring. The case was not about puberty blockers per se but about informed consent to a treatment, the consequences of which are beyond the comprehension of a child.

The "experimental" nature of the treatment means that the "information" is currently unreliable, incomplete and speculative.

However, the judges were clear that the problem was not with the information itself. The problem was with the proposition that a child would be able to properly evaluate the consequences of undertaking a treatment that would impact their adult sexual and reproductive capacity.

But the reason was the link between taking PBs and going on to take hormones.

If evidence (which doesn’t seem to currently exist) were produced to show that there is no causative link that judgement no longer makes sense. (Although there is still the issue of whether PBs are harmful long term in themselves and whether they improve outcomes).

@merrymouse

But the reason was the link between taking PBs and going on to take hormones.

If evidence (which doesn’t seem to currently exist) were produced to show that there is no causative link that judgement no longer makes sense. (Although there is still the issue of whether PBs are harmful long term in themselves and whether they improve outcomes).

Ah! Thank you. I get the point you were making now!

Superb letter in the BMJ explaining the situation to readers who may not be up to speed and questioning the BMA position.

twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1356533986542186496?s=21

That's an excellent letter. Direct link here:

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n205/rr-2

Great letter, thanks for sharing.