Keira Bell and Mrs A vs. Tavistock - Court of Appeal hearing 23 & 24 June 2021

[FindTheTruth]

The appeal hearing will be live streamed this Wednesday 23 & Thursday 24 June, 10:30am

Background

1. The High Court decided in Mrs A and Keira Bell’s favour on 1st December 2020 that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are experimental treatments which cannot be given to children in most cases without application to the court. Full details of the original case:

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

1. The High Court decided in the case of AB on 26 March 2021 thatPARENTScan consent to their children receiving puberty blocking treatment when their children lack the capacity to consent.

1. Court of Appeal 23 & 24 June 2021 Keira Bell and Mrs A’s legal team is dealing with legal submissions from 7 intervenors who want to see the judgement of the Divisional Court overturned. “A significant task in defending the judgement of the Divisional Court. We are facing very well resourced opponents – the Tavistock being funded by the State and the other intervenors”.

@bitheby

No yeahbutnaw. This is not frivolous. I could've been in Keira's shoes. Luckily I didn't get a whole load of adults encouraging me down a pathway where my breasts got lopped off and I never got to experience orgasms.

Well that makes your desire to remove other people's bodily autonomy completely rational then.

@yourhairiswinterfire

And it says a lot about someone who describes child safeguarding, and the sterilising of children, many with autism, as ''frivolous''

I don't think you understand what safeguarding means.

From what I understand, the point of law being made that the court cannot decide by judicial review, whether Gillick competence is possible or not, based on age-bands as laid out by the previous court, as every single case has to be assessed on its own merits.

So even with poorly-evidenced medicine, which causes enormous harm, it isn’t up to the courts to designate or limit who might be considered competent. Presumably the judges must make the assumption that the medics are assumed to be responsible and skilled. You can challenge an individual case, but not put a more general stop to the rest.

So even if the judges decide that what’s being done is criminally bad, they might still conclude that legally it’s not up to them to draw up guidelines that doctors and medical bodies should be creating.

Which suggests to me that it may turn out that the only way to challenge this situation is through individuals suing the hospitals and hoping that enough damage is done that the medical pathways are changed.

Hope I’m wrong, but it sounds like it may be an important point of law: that judicial review is the wrong way to challenge this.

It is rational. That's why it's in the courts. Can a child give informed consent when it's impossible for a child to know what they are consenting to given that they don't know about sexual pleasure until they go through puberty and this 'treatment' is precisely designed to stop them going through puberty.

Again, the use of people when referring to minors.

I don't think you understand what safeguarding means.

The fucking irony of that statement.

I don't know your gender, yeahbutnaw (and I don't care) but can't you accept that there are loads of children who experience gender dysphoria as children and grow out of it? And as a society we must protect them. Often they are LGB.

This is my exact experience. And yes I am also autistic.

@nauticant

Judge: Perhaps you might want to reflect on this overnight Mr Hyam and try again tomorrow?

Suggests that the change of tack has completely floored Keira’s QC. I hope he does go home and can think fast through some counter-arguments. These things can twist and turn enormously, but there isn’t much thinking time here.

I don't think you understand what safeguarding means

Oh, I do. It sure as shit isn't giving children who aren't mature enough to consent medication that sterilises them and ruins their chance of sexual relationships as adults, based on no solid evidence whatsoever.

Respondent's QC is trying his hardest to get the judges to see that using PBs for precious puberty and for gender issues are very different things. I'm struggling with the possibility of the Court of Appeal thinking that the Tavistock is acting lawfully while being permitted to harm children.

Having written "acting lawfully while being permitted to harm children", it brings to mind this story:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57547366

I know court cases twist and turn, but I really don't like the way this is sounding.

Sounds like someone needs to judicially review the use of puberty blockers in children for gender dysphoria.

Good idea. Let them get really stuck in and scrutinise the evidence (or massive lack of). Then see them try and defend why they're sterilising kids for no good reason, why they still want to put kids on this ''treatment'' when even their own studies show there is no improvement in mental health etc.

What other frivolous Gillick Competence cases have there been?

[quote nauticant]Having written "acting lawfully while being permitted to harm children", it brings to mind this story:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57547366[/quote]
What on Earth? That's absolutely terrible.

@nauticant

Respondent's QC is trying his hardest to get the judges to see that using PBs for precious puberty and for gender issues are very different things. I'm struggling with the possibility of the Court of Appeal thinking that the Tavistock is acting lawfully while being permitted to harm children.

As am I.

I’ve often found it difficult to argue the points about puberty blockers (and the wider issue of transition more generally) because when core members of the medical profession are embracing it, pointing out the significant evidence base and the quiet stir of unease from various other medics is a very difficult pathway. The general assumption still is that medical scandals on the scale of lobotomy couldn’t possibly be happening now.

And unfortunately, it sounds like a good legal point. Even if GIDS is massively failing its patients, to the point of criminality, it may not be up to the courts to intervene in general policy making.

Someone mentioned the Sinnott case and this may turn out similarly: not that the point has no merit, but that judicial review is not the appropriate tool for intervention.

I wanted to add that it sounds like the respondent’s QC might now be arguing the wrong point altogether, nauticant.

@AnyOldPrion

From what I understand, the point of law being made that the court cannot decide by judicial review, whether Gillick competence is possible or not, based on age-bands as laid out by the previous court, as every single case has to be assessed on its own merits.

So even with poorly-evidenced medicine, which causes enormous harm, it isn’t up to the courts to designate or limit who might be considered competent. Presumably the judges must make the assumption that the medics are assumed to be responsible and skilled. You can challenge an individual case, but not put a more general stop to the rest.

So even if the judges decide that what’s being done is criminally bad, they might still conclude that legally it’s not up to them to draw up guidelines that doctors and medical bodies should be creating.

Which suggests to me that it may turn out that the only way to challenge this situation is through individuals suing the hospitals and hoping that enough damage is done that the medical pathways are changed.

Hope I’m wrong, but it sounds like it may be an important point of law: that judicial review is the wrong way to challenge this.

Not the only way. It would (in theory) be possible to bring in legislation that sets a different test from Gillick competence that should be applied in GD cases where the patient is below the age of 16.

Not that I can see any party doing that in the current climate. Or supporting a private member's bill that sought the same outcome, tbh.

This is a good point - re quality of what needs to be understood and the consequences.

Cardinal 'This is a bit theoretical and I'm not saying it's anything to do with Keira's case, but is there a distinction between not being able to consent, because you lack the capacity to fully understand the information given, and consenting with understanding but later changing your mind? Would the latter situation always depend on not having relevant information or understanding that means you would've made a different decision had you had that in the first instance?'

You could make the same argument about a 13 year old consenting to sex with an adult x however we don't because a 13 year old cannot consent.

I think this is good now because instead of the technicalities of the law, the implications of the technicalities of applying the law are being described.

If the Tavistock win the appeal, it will be because they were not acting unlawfully in allowing treatment with PBs, because in theory they could in a medical context assess each child sufficiently thoroughly to be satisfied there is consent.

Where would that leave things? The Tavistock and everyone else know that they have no robust evidence base on which to prescribe PBs, and so if they're going to prescribe them it would be an experimental treatment that no one for sure can be confident that fully informed consent has been obtained. What kind of medical practitioner would want to operate in such circumstances? There will be some but they're the ones the Tavistock would need to be worried about, they're the ones that will be creating a hard to define litigation risk.

I think this could end up very messy indeed. I’m bracing for this court to boot this back to the Tavi on the assumption that they should know what they’re doing and be very invested in the lasting welfare of all of the children coming through their doors.

But the problem is, the evidence is mounting (with the Sonia Appleby and David Bell cases for example) that they don’t, and they’re not.

Hmmm.

@noneedtoexpelme

Cardinal 'This is a bit theoretical and I'm not saying it's anything to do with Keira's case, but is there a distinction between not being able to consent, because you lack the capacity to fully understand the information given, and consenting with understanding but later changing your mind? Would the latter situation always depend on not having relevant information or understanding that means you would've made a different decision had you had that in the first instance?'

You could make the same argument about a 13 year old consenting to sex with an adult x however we don't because a 13 year old cannot consent.

I wasn't making an argument! A 13-year-old wouldn't be in the latter situation so wouldn't be what I was talking about.

I think what I'm thinking-out-loud about is, if you are legally able to consent to something but later change your mind (abortion, perhaps) would you always think that you now have additional information or understanding and therefore at the time you did not understand or know fully what you were consenting to?

I guess a lot of it is predicting your future state of mind in order to weigh up pros and cons to your decision, and then realising perhaps you didn't anticipate your future state of mind/feelings as accurately as you thought.

Bit of a tangent from this actual case.... sorry!

apologies but can anyone break down the appeal for me?

1 Tavi had a policy
2 it was put aside after judicial review.

1. judicial review being appealed on grounds that...........?

any help appreciated.