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”.

@nauticant

The judges don't want responsibility for this. They want the responsibility to lie on those making the medical decisions and for them to get their act together.

The way the judges are looking to wriggle out of this is to say there was nothing unlawful in a narrow judicial review sense.

To me the question is whether they're going to wash their hands so completely that they'll refrain from even stating that although there was no illegality, the Tavistock are acting without an evidence base.

It sounds like they're conscious the next safeguarding scandal is brewing...

I never realised how judges can pick and chose towards an outcome they want. It is clear that these judges don't want to make a ruling, they are looking for a technicality to overturn to get out of making a decision on this. Wow

I don't think it does leave them with a nightmare if they win the appeal. A large part of their client base totally believe in the approach and will happily put their children on the pathway. If you believe your child is trans and has been since birth, why wouldn't you carry on. Afterall it's only people like us and a lower court that is saying it's wrong and that's only because we're transphobic.

Does Keira get to give any evidence or is it only the lawyers that can speak?

It's interesting to think about what the Tavistock make of this and what they wanted from the initial decision. The appeal being successful is a terrible outcome for them. The High Court exposed their evidence base and practice as being woeful and if the Court of Appeal overturns the High Court, this will be trumpeted everywhere is a totally victory for prescription of puberty blockers to children and the Tavistock will be deluged with children saying "I want my puberty blockers". The very worst thing the Tavistock could do in response would be to return to business as usual.

Unfortunately sometime times people and companies are above the law, my heart breaks for Keria but this is one of them. It's not right, it's not fair but it's life.
The Judges are terrified, and you can understand why.
You can't trust anyone in any type of power.

Hyam comes up with a sensible analogy which I imagine the court will try not to engage with: prescribing puberty blockers is akin to sterlisation.

Hyam appears to be fighting for a compromise position in which something more is required than simple consent being given by parents on behalf of children, that there might be some situations where the court does need to be involved in making the ultimate decision for puberty blockers to be prescribed.

I have a question about the crucial point in the original judgement, where children on PB almost universally go on to cross-sex hormones, and therefore consenting to the first stage of the treatment involves consenting to the second.

I think everyone's agreeing that kids age 10 are too young to consent to losing their sexual function as they have no idea what they're consenting to?

But how is a kid age 14, who's been on puberty blockers since age 10, any better equipped to make that decision than the 10 year old was? Their sexual development is in exactly the same stage as it was when they went on puberty blockers, that's the entire point of puberty blockers.

The question doesn't seem to have much relevance to the direction the judges are going in now, but it's annoying me.

The appeal can be lost but it still leaves the Tavistock with a nightmare. They know they have no evidence base and they know that everyone else knows it

I don't think they will have any incentive to care, though, will they?

I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of the clinicians working at GIDS are not technically 'medical' professionals.

I don't think that the judges have fully grasped this either.

They are psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists, nurses etc, no doubt with plenty of high level skills, relevant experience and training but most of the doctors we have heard from, Polly Carmichael for one, are academic doctors rather than because they have done a medical degree.

Dr Sinha is a psychiatrist so has done a medical degree. Dr Bell is another - not that he worked for GIDS.

Endocrinologists (medical doctors) will supply the drugs in 'safe' doses as directed rather than ever question whether or why there is a need for them in the first place.

Anyone know if there are any other medical doctors other than Dr Sinha currently working for GIDS as the website is very vague about the team?

I suspect if the Tavistock win this, there will be huge celebrations and a rush to return to former activities. I think that may even happen if the judgment given urges caution. If the original decision is wholly overturned, I think it will be seen as a green light. This feels like a horrible pivotal moment.

I'm feeling sick reading the comments from the judges. It all looks like it's going wrong

@nauticant

Hyam comes up with a sensible analogy which I imagine the court will try not to engage with: prescribing puberty blockers is akin to sterlisation.

This is an interesting take. Haven't we all heard the stories of full-grown adult women fighting to get sterilised and doctor's not allowing it because 'they might change their minds' and 'what if their future husbands want children' etc.?

Who is this giving evidence now?

A new counsel, with a very clear voice, Mr Mckendrick, is now up representing endocrinologists. Sounds like he'll have interesting arguments to make.

I bet that 6-12 months of rigorous assessment is one or two appointments.

If the Tavi wins the appeal they know a spotlight is on them - Sonia Appleby's case and Cass review as just 2 examples.

But what about private practitioners - here or abroad? Surely it would give a green light to all the Webberlys of this world?

So has KB's counsel already had his time?

And now there are a bunch of intervenors? Are they all intervening on the same side?

Trying to figure out if there's any way this could be turned around from where it looks like it's headed.

McKendrick is also pointing to the fact that claimants should have made a negligence claim or similar against the Tavistock. A judicial review was the wrong way to go.

McKendrick is being effective in his use of timing. His introduction is to put a lot of ideas into heads, when he's done in the next few minutes there'll be a break for lunch, then after lunch he'll be expanding on the ideas are going in much more deeply.

There's always this which I posted earlier

Finally, which is not a direct issue concerning the Gender Recognition Act, but is relevant, making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future. I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.

anyone know what happened to this. A statement by Liz Truss on 20th April 2020

Endocrinologists (medical doctors) will supply the drugs in 'safe' doses as directed rather than ever question whether or why there is a need for them in the first place.

I've never understood that bit. I would have thought final responsibility rests with the prescriber. Plus responsibility to monitor. Even if steering clear from mental health, physical side effects of the drugs should surely be followed up by the prescriber. 🤷‍♀️

D7D1's second post was deleted, but I agree, and it's a worry.

If 10-12 year olds are competent enough to consent to sterilisation (despite evidence suggesting it doesn't benefit them) when even grown women are refused in case they change their minds, what else could it be argued that these 10-12 year olds are competent enough to consent to?

Feels like we're on a slippery slope?