The judgment in Keira Bell's case will be given tomorrow

[MaudTheInvincible]

The judgment of the Tavistock's appeal of the case will be given at 2pm.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list

Brave Keira. You have done so much to protect children from ideologically driven healthcare around the world. Your integrity and courage is inspiring and rare in this ridiculous day and age. 💚🤍💜

Remember that High Court and above decisions aren't like football results. The real significance might be the way in which the Court of Appeal expresses its reasoning.

"Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or
civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases."

That sounds familiar. Is that not very similar to the JR of the MoJ?

Which to me comes across as - oh, shit, we've made bad law, you little people will have to sue us so that we can fix it.

With no consideration of what it takes to bring action, the stress and suffering involved, let alone the time and energy.

Is it definitely up yet? The links still looked like a holding page to me.

@ChattyLion

Is it definitely up yet? The links still looked like a holding page to me.

It's definitely up.

The link

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bell-and-another-v-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others/

Is correct. Scroll down to download the full judgement or the summary.

The kindness and compassion shown by trans activists for detransitioners, and for any woman in a distressing situation, is always an interesting sight.

What does this mean??

It's no longer a holding page. Scroll down.

If you refresh the page the judgment has come up.

That is very true @ArabellaScott, but class actions are easier and I suspect there will be a few firms of solicitors (albeit not Dentons) keeping an eye out for the opportunity.

[quote nauticant]The trans activists seem to be responding reasonably:

twitter.com/e_urq/status/1438852308058710020[/quote]
As anticipated, we will have a loud chorus of people telling women to 'suck cock' today.

@PiglingBlonde

Very interesting last sentence in the summary: "Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases."

The next route will be claims against the Tavistock for damages on the basis that they didn't obtain proper consent.

I strongly suspect that GIDS will continue with their newly tightened up methodology of using a multidisciplinary group to decide if children should be referred.to endocrinology.

Detransitioners are going to have to start suing. It really is the only way that this madness will end. Unfortunately, I think it will take a long, long time before the first wave of detransitioners feel up to taking on the system.

First point: stating that the Tavi doesn't prescribe the PBs, but refers them to others to prescribe, although the Tavi assesses whether they would benefit from PBs and is capable of giving consent.

So still the same issue really?

@nauticant

It's no longer a holding page. Scroll down.

It still is for me, no option for scrolling down?

@ArabellaScott

Anyone 'celebrating' this should take a look at themselves. Why would you celebrate the suffering of another human being?

I could say the same thing to anyone celebrating if the appeal had not been granted.

Children must come first ♥️

news.ohsu.edu/2021/04/19/affirming-healthcare-is-life-saving-for-transgender-youth

@Conniethesensible

HOORAY! Bell v Tavistock has been overturned in the Court of Appeal. This is a huge win for trans people, trans youth and their families in particular ♥️

yes! What a relief! Now can we improve services and reduce wait times?!

Much love and support to Keira who has been incredibly brave.

@Conniethesensible

HOORAY! Bell v Tavistock has been overturned in the Court of Appeal. This is a huge win for trans people, trans youth and their families in particular ♥️

Good god. To celebrate the right for children to seriously damage their bodies, with little understanding of what will lie ahead, is grotesque.

Direct links if page is not working properly - these will trigger a pdf download.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Bell-v-Tavistock-judgment-170921.pdf

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Bell-v-Tavistock-summary-170921.pdf

What speed up the sterilisation of girls who won't conform?

I don't think so

yes! What a relief! Now can we improve services and reduce wait times?!

Gosh, yes, let's get kids lined up for puberty blockers as young as possible, eh? Get that medication into them stat! We can surely find evidence that benefit outweighs risks later, at some point, maybe.

Children must come first

No more harm to children by the Tavistock

@Gumbomambo

Much love and support to Keira who has been incredibly brave.

I second this.

Thank goodness common sense is restored as is Gillick Competency. Transition regret is very rare from the stats.

Well done to all involved in the appeal to get the trans kids the treatment they require, supervised by medical professionals.

A very good Friday!

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/17/appeal-court-overturns-uk-puberty-blockers-ruling-for-under-16s-tavistock-keira-bell

Can I genuinely ask the two posters celebrating and urging faster treatment what gender has to do with physical bodies? If gender is innate and entirely separate from sex, why does anyone need to change their body? I really struggle with this. The way people insist a trans person's body must be changed from 'male-looking' to 'female-looking' or vice versa implies there is something to do with biological sex that overlaps with gender. But what and how? How can people also claim that these are separate and different ones handed out at birth?

There's a judgment summary of the decision provided by the Court:

12. The Court of Appeal decided that the declaration made by the Divisional Court covered areas of disputed fact, expert evidence and medical opinion, which were not suitable for determination in judicial review proceedings. The case of Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority had decided that it was for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment. It had been said in R (Burke) v. General Medical Council there were great dangers in a court grappling with issues which were divorced from the factual context that required their determination: “the court should not be used as a general advice centre”. The declaration transgressed these principles.

13. In addition, the Divisional Court was not in a position to give guidance that generalisedabout the capability of persons of different ages to understand what was necessary for them to be competent to consent to the administration of puberty blockers. The guidance would require applications to the court when there was no legal obligation for such an application to be made. It placed patients, parents and clinicians in a difficult position, and should not have been given.

14. The Divisional Court had concluded that Tavistock’s policies and practices were not unlawful and rejected the legal criticism of its materials. In those circumstances, the claim for judicial review should have been dismissed.

15. The Court of Appeal recognised the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether under 18s were competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers, but it was for clinicians to exercise their judgment knowing how important it was for the patient’s consent to be properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances. Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.