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 says the court can't engage in a debate about guidelines because that's not what the judicial review is about.

This doesn't sound good to me.

Yes, another judge is making clear that argument needs to be focused on whether the Tavistock's treatment with respect to consent by patients was lawful.

Is the court of appeal’s job not just to consider if the lower court erred in law? Not to revisit the arguments.

Some live tweeting has resumed that might help clarify matters:

twitter.com/search?q=(from%3ASVPhillimore)&src=typed_query&f=live

The sound is so terrible making it very difficult to understand what is being argued, sub titles would have been a good idea!

We're now onto whether the treatment is experimental.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1407697422365642757 great

'leap of logic' I love that, isn't that what has been happening at the Tavi?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

It may come down to whether the AC accepts that it is harmful for trans-identifying children to have to go through natural puberty. If the Court accepts that, it will be much easier for the Tavi to argue that PBs are no different in principle from other treatments where there is a trade-off of risk vs benefit.

Depends whether they buy into the idea of a “trans (identifying) child” or whether they stick to medical science and “children suffering from gender dysphoria”. There’s strong evidence supporting the view that in 80% of “children suffering from gender dysphoria” cases, puberty results in improvement or resolution of the condition.

The use of puberty blockers therefore relies 100% on “trans (identifying) children” being different from “children with gender dysphoria” and doctors being able to diagnose the difference reliably.

Which is where it appears the Tavistock case is weak to non-existent.

I hope you’re wrong and the judges recognize the difference. My suspicion is that at some point, transition as a “cure” for feeling as if you are/having a strong desire to be the opposite sex will come to be viewed as at least as scandalous as lobotomy. And the worst cases will be those where children were sterilised and suffered appalling side effects, without being successfully helped with the original problem they were suffering.

We're now hearing from Jeremy Hyam QC acting for Keira Bell.

Clear from service specification that consent of the child was a necessary pre-requisite for treatment this should mean that the child must be Gillick competent in the case of PB's and therefore the inclusion of parents is neither here nor there - my understanding

I really wish the original judgment had listed ‘none of this treatment changes sex’ as a matter to be understood. I understand from several UK transsexuals on Twitter that this was a key point made to them before undergoing treatment as adults - their consent was informed and realistic. I am really not sure why it was not specifically listed.

Uh-oh, one of the judges is saying that Tavistock's approach appears to be wholly lawful and the issue is incorrect application in some cases. Again, a suggestion that this case isn't appropriate for judicial review.

This does not sound good to me.

I think one of the difficulties is that this isn't a review of the use of PBs. It's a review of whether the Tavi's approach to prescribing them is lawful. The pros and cons of PBs are only being considered to the extent that they are relevant to the assessment of the Tavi's approach.

Bell's lawyer currently sounds like a student getting a grilling in supervision and not really having done his homework.

The question being examined here seems to be: can a child consent vs were there cases where the Tavistock did not obtain consent because their guidelines weren't followed properly or were not thorough enough.

@bitheby

Bell's lawyer currently sounds like a student getting a grilling in supervision and not really having done his homework.

Isn't that the same as all frivolous GC cases? e.g., Ann Sinnot's recent failure.

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

Seems to me that the judges are saying that children can have Gillick competence and it's not up to them to decide whether or not whatever the Tavistock is doing is good for them or not.

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

Isn't that the same as all frivolous GC cases? e.g., Ann Sinnot's recent failure.

Nope. That was just one. Plenty have been very successful :)

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.

I invoke Bunbury's

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