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”.

Judge: Does the evidence for reversibility of PB's come from their use in precocious puberty, or from children who have been on them for gender dysphoria and have stopped them?

It seems as though suddenly the Tavistock has become a massively organised and knowledgeable organisation. How did that happen in such a short space of time?

Perhaps they've found a whole bunch of data stuffed down the back of the sofa.

@yourhairiswinterfire

Judge: Does the evidence for reversibility of PB's come from their use in precocious puberty, or from children who have been on them for gender dysphoria and have stopped them?

Straight in there.

Judge: what do you mean by irreversible for puberty blockers, are you talking about transition treatments or precocious puberty?

Appellant counsel: puberty blockers are used in many different treatments. Witness statement from a Dr says they're committed to "do no harm".

Well, the appellant counsel is swerving all over to avoid the essence of the judge's question there.

Only taken for a short period of time for precocious puberty and many report problems.

Judge criticised the appellant counsel for "random use of statistics" and is asking the counsel to explain precisely what the statistics mean.

@NotBadConsidering

The Tavistock’s own study, published online days after the original ruling, after they said it wasn’t ready during the hearing, concluded puberty blockers conferred no psychological improvement over time overall for the children in the study.

Their barrister said earlier that the lack of change in psychological state showed they were doing a job as they would have had worse mental health without them.

i didn't hear her offer any actual evidence for this.

Appellant counsel "I 100% take that on board". That would have been a fantastic joke had it being deliberate.

I noticed that she used 'may' and 'might' too in relation to reducing distress and depression.

😂😂😂😂 Judge: statics being banded around QC: I 100% agree

Cross posted nauticant - still laughing

Appellant's counsel: there are lots of reviews and stuff going on and things are going to be even better.

Maybe the appellant's documents are terrific and their counsel isn't bringing that out in her submissions, but so far I've not heard anything here that's undermining the case at the High Court level.

The Tavistock’s own study, published online days after the original ruling, after they said it wasn’t ready during the hearing, concluded puberty blockers conferred no psychological improvement over time overall for the children in the study.

This has to be brought out into open court this blows their justification for using PBs out of the water.

there are lots of reviews and stuff going on and things are going to be even better.

Well, that's a sure fire winner of an argument!

At least I've now heard something that causes pause for thought:

A team of clinicians, and a parent, and a child all agree. In the public interest to permit treatment in this case.

We've moved onto the substance of the appellant's case, the legal basis for consent of a minor, the Gillick arguments.

pmk keeping everything crossed for Keira and this ruling

@nauticant

At least I've now heard something that causes pause for thought:

A team of clinicians, and a parent, and a child all agree. In the public interest to permit treatment in this case.

What’s your pause nauticant? I can see the argument that it is intrusive for those individuals, but it remains that children of a certain age cannot be considered to consent to that treatment. And that there is a wider public interest due to the impact of social contagion?

A team of clinicians, and a parent, and a child all agree.

The child doesn't count, due to lack of consent. There's a limit to what parent can agree others can do to their children.

Barrister now making the point re Gillick that the test in terms of contraception is what it should be for puberty blockers. Totally different.

What’s your pause nauticant?

My pause is that it means there needs to be proper discussion to work out the nature of consent for the child and particularly in relation to puberty blockers. That's what the court has moved onto now. The big question for me is how the appellant will bridge the gap between treatments such as contraception and abortion vs the outcome caused by PBs then cross-sex hormones.

@bitheby

Barrister now making the point re Gillick that the test in terms of contraception is what it should be for puberty blockers. Totally different.

Exactly this.

If the case rests on whether the bundles were properly labelled then Tavistock would have lost already.

What was that point about holding irrational beliefs?