Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Tavistock clinic to be sued by 1000 families

302 replies

WarriorN · 11/08/2022 06:33

Times article I've just seen...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-gender-clinic-to-be-sued-by-1-000-families-lbsw6k8zd

I'm afraid I don't have access but the headline alone...

I'm assuming it's for overly enthusiastic affirmative care and not the opposite?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
dropthevipers · 11/08/2022 13:07

So many replies and not one sticking up for the Tavistock. I don't know, the casual observer might think they were the bad guys or something.

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:08

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/08/2022 12:24

The puberty blockers are usually reversible.

In what sense? Most children put on puberty blockers go onto cross sex hormones, and never go through natural puberty.

according to the NHS website they are. however cross sex hormones may not be.

PronounssheRa · 11/08/2022 13:11

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:08

according to the NHS website they are. however cross sex hormones may not be.

This is what the NHS now say about blockers, it was amended not long ago

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

2Rebecca · 11/08/2022 13:13

I think the real threat of litigation will focus clinicians' minds a bit on the "do no harm" philosophy. It will also mean children wanting cross sex hormones etc will have to learn a new script as "I'll kill myself if I don't get what I want" will mean more therapy and slower access to hormones not faster. They'll have to show they are sane, well balanced and sensible.
Agree a misleading headline

Helleofabore · 11/08/2022 13:14

Imnotavetbut · 11/08/2022 12:53

This firm isn't daft, they know about class action suits and how to get people onboard the process. In that sense, yes it is an advert, however you can bet they wouldn't be putting it out there without them already having some parents involved.

As for the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension, I've mentioned before that my DS has this. Unfortunately it is not a 'pop a pill and you're fixed' disease. It has turned our lives upside down and two years in we're looking at surgical intervention now. The risk of blindness doesn't just disappear due to the prolonged swelling of the optic nerves which causes scarring. The meds are awful and have serious side effects, my DS's schooling and social life has been terribly affected. It used to be called pseudo tumour cerebri because it creates the same environment in the skull as a brain tumour does; and in fact that was the first thing they tested for. It is a debilitating and bloody awful neurological disease that shouldn't be underestimated.

In a strange turn of fate, he was nearly put on lupron some years ago for another issue. Fortunately this was avoided but I felt sick to the pit of my stomach when I saw that IIH is now listed as a possible side effect of it. Sorry, minor rant but some fool chortling on about potential blindness in such a dismissive fashion pissed me off.

I am so sorry you are dealing with this.

I read about the cases of 'pseudo tumour cerebri' when the FDA updated that list.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 11/08/2022 13:17

all those friends who turned their backs on us are going to start crawling out of the woodwork with tails between their legs now.

It depends. I'm a golden bridge person because there has to be a way back for people.

However, there will plausibly be very little acknowledgement or even continuing ostracism and silence. This is known as the "premature anti-[X]" phenomenon because nobody wants to be reminded of a time when they were on the wrong side of history.

Two of the best known instances are to have been a premature anti-fascist or a premature anti-Nazi.

‘Premature anti-fascist’ was the name by which the Lincoln Brigade veterans of the Spanish Civil War were known by the US Army in World War Two. This service and knowledge didn't distinguish them for a leadership position, it was counted as demerit on their record.

In John Platts-Mills' autobiography (barrister and post-war Labour MP), he recalls being ‘excluded from any form of normal war service by the stupidities of Bevin’. He noted: ‘An anti-Nazi history, was of no help and to have been prematurely anti-Nazi was a positive hindrance … we were condemned throughout most of the 1930s on the grounds that only Communists were against the Nazis and this hostility carried over into the war years.’

Commenting on (British?) veterans of the Spanish Civil War, Platts-Mills wrote that ‘many lefties who had served in Spain were called up or were accepted when they volunteered. Several more got in only after a tussle with the authorities.’

I have no expectation that women who were banned from social media platforms for stating material reality will be restored.

There is a strong need for something like a Truth and Reconciliation exercise to understand how this ever happened but I doubt any of the organisations would cooperate.

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:20

@PronounssheRa people are not hearing what I am saying. To prove medical negligence you can't have a list of 'what ifs', you have to have solid proveable evidence.
I am not minimising the effects of hormone blockers or the effects on the young people involved, just pointing out it is unlikely to cost the NHS millions to settle. The case will also involve whether the child and parents were warned of the side effects (which they usually are).

I don't think I am derailing because I totally agree with the whole gender dysphoria/ASC/smoke and mirrors nonsense being peddled to disaffected children and their gullible parents I'm just pointing out from a personal standpoint medical negligence isn't a simple matter of getter a good lawyer.

Floisme · 11/08/2022 13:20

Cholette · 11/08/2022 13:04

So you think having a different view on the lawyers presentation means you can throw out nasty unfounded pathetic slurs?

You did come across quite TRA-ish in your judgement of the female lawyer.

Do you think so? I've just read the post concerned again and the poster criticises the lawyer for not being on top of the issue, for talking as if the Tavi had already closed, and for confusing sex and gender.
I didn't hear the interview so I can't say whether or not I agree with that judgement but, if that's correct then they all sound like valid concerns.
This board feels very spiky at the moment.

spongedog · 11/08/2022 13:22

MsRosley · 11/08/2022 11:24

Looking forward to my mealy-mouthed, rainbow-flag-waving friends starting to row back from this stuff. I have a long memory though.

Yes me too. But I am going to slightly change your statement for me to being "my mealy-mouthed, MALE GAY rainbow-flag-waving "friends" " because quite frankly after the last few years I can't bear to be around them and their ridiculous TWAW statements. I think they know how I feel and have been avoiding me.

Chrysanthemum5 · 11/08/2022 13:22

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:20

@PronounssheRa people are not hearing what I am saying. To prove medical negligence you can't have a list of 'what ifs', you have to have solid proveable evidence.
I am not minimising the effects of hormone blockers or the effects on the young people involved, just pointing out it is unlikely to cost the NHS millions to settle. The case will also involve whether the child and parents were warned of the side effects (which they usually are).

I don't think I am derailing because I totally agree with the whole gender dysphoria/ASC/smoke and mirrors nonsense being peddled to disaffected children and their gullible parents I'm just pointing out from a personal standpoint medical negligence isn't a simple matter of getter a good lawyer.

True @hewouldwouldnthe there have to be proven effects and I think for many of the people put into puberty blockers there will be. Loss of sexual function, bone damage etc can all be proven

Helleofabore · 11/08/2022 13:22

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:08

according to the NHS website they are. however cross sex hormones may not be.

The NHS site has been changed. And that 'reversible' quote has been removed from other countries guidance as well.

While puberty 'may' continue = reversing the blocking, the negative side effects while taking these drugs are most certainly not reversible and have been known long enough to not be reversible.

This was a sleight of hand that was used to calm fears and act like a panacea - believe us.... don't believe those haters...

Just like activists who like to parse down 'biological woman' with the 'well, I am biological and I am a woman!'

Cross sex hormones 'may not be'? Hmm

In what way are they reversible for females? I am keen to find out why you believe they are generally.

And it is now coming to light that those males taking estrogen cannot simply get breast tissue removed and consider their body was like it never took estrogen treatment.

I think anyone posting about the reversibility of these treatments may need to think about the misinformation they are spreading.

Abitofalark · 11/08/2022 13:23

There's a good article in the Mail on a similar theme but more speculative - it quotes James Esses, Stephanie Davies-Arai, Simon Myerson QC who predicted on twitter that there will be a criminal investigation, and some personal injury lawyers:

"Tavistock transgender clinic could face mass legal action 'from 1,000 families of children who claim they were rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers' weeks after NHS shut it down in wake of damning report"

James Esses: 'I have been contacted by a number of detransitioners who are considering taking legal action. Already in the USA there are class lawsuits being taken by parents of children prescribed puberty blockers. It is only a matter of time until we see similar action on our shores.'

There's also some discussion by specialist lawyers as to what the liability in law is in order to claim compensation, i.e. it's not that there had to be exemplary care but that there must be injury.

And Simon Myerston: 'We're in the extraordinary position that drugs prescribed to children as safe and reversible appear not to have yet been subject to clinical trials in respect of the purpose for which those children received them. There is thus unlikely to be informed consent to taking them.'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11101661/Tavistock-transgender-clinic-facing-mass-legal-action-1-000-families.html

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/08/2022 13:23

True @hewouldwouldnthe there have to be proven effects and I think for many of the people put into puberty blockers there will be. Loss of sexual function, bone damage etc can all be proven

Exactly.

Helleofabore · 11/08/2022 13:25

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:20

@PronounssheRa people are not hearing what I am saying. To prove medical negligence you can't have a list of 'what ifs', you have to have solid proveable evidence.
I am not minimising the effects of hormone blockers or the effects on the young people involved, just pointing out it is unlikely to cost the NHS millions to settle. The case will also involve whether the child and parents were warned of the side effects (which they usually are).

I don't think I am derailing because I totally agree with the whole gender dysphoria/ASC/smoke and mirrors nonsense being peddled to disaffected children and their gullible parents I'm just pointing out from a personal standpoint medical negligence isn't a simple matter of getter a good lawyer.

I am genuinely not sure why you think that there is no 'solid provable evidence' amongst the trans population? And that this will be so hard to prove with current knowledge about these drugs internationally?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/08/2022 13:27

Current NHS website text (my bold):

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones
Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.
Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.
These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:
• breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
• breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as cross-sex hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.
There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

PronounssheRa · 11/08/2022 13:37

hewouldwouldnthe · 11/08/2022 13:20

@PronounssheRa people are not hearing what I am saying. To prove medical negligence you can't have a list of 'what ifs', you have to have solid proveable evidence.
I am not minimising the effects of hormone blockers or the effects on the young people involved, just pointing out it is unlikely to cost the NHS millions to settle. The case will also involve whether the child and parents were warned of the side effects (which they usually are).

I don't think I am derailing because I totally agree with the whole gender dysphoria/ASC/smoke and mirrors nonsense being peddled to disaffected children and their gullible parents I'm just pointing out from a personal standpoint medical negligence isn't a simple matter of getter a good lawyer.

I was responding to your claim that blockers are reversible, when there is no evidence to support that. The issue isn't just blockers either. Many of these children will also have been moved to cross sex hormones where there is clear evidence - male children growing breasts, female children with deepening voices and facial hair, the impact on fertility.As for the issue of consent, given what we know about record keeping at the Tavi, the way they were ideologically driven, and the unknowns about puberty blockers I think that will be one of the easier obstacles to overcome

OvaHere · 11/08/2022 13:39

GatherlyGal · 11/08/2022 09:59

This is such amazing news. And great publicity for the law firm which will bring more claimants out of the woodwork I bet.

we have just been discharged from the Tavi as DD is 18 and Keira Bell changed our lives. The amazing timing of her case meant that in the small window DD could have had blockers they were not available. Without that we were on an express train towards that despite me and DH being very opposed. we had held off through 2 or 3 appointments but pressure was mounting and then the verdict came just in time.

It is hard to express what it's like as a parent with your kid's every word about their self-diagnosis, desire for blockers and surgery being nodded through as 100% fact.

I can well believe there are 1000 parents who were not so lucky as us.

Incredibly DD is already grateful we put the brakes on. She still talks about medical transition "in a few years" but I believe it's less and less likely as time goes on.

My heart breaks for those caught up in this. The more I read and learn the more obvious it is that blockers are just evil life limiting and dangerous.

Whatever my kid does now she has a fully developed body at least and has got through what I believe is the hardest part of puberty / adolescence intact.

I'm so relieved for you and your DD but also very sad about the families and children it was too late for.

nauticant · 11/08/2022 13:43

"The puberty blockers are usually reversible" is a political statement rather than a medical or scientific one hewouldwouldnthe. If you have a male child reaching 18 after being puberty blocked from the onset on puberty, they will have a micropenis which is not in any way reversible. No one knows about the less visible effects on children, and especially on female children.

Abitofalark · 11/08/2022 13:57

RoyalCorgi · 11/08/2022 09:23

I'd be very surprised if we don't see a certain illustrious, brave man on the birthday honours list next year.

Much as I'd love to see this, Graham is Irish so not technically eligible.

But he will have the satisfaction of being completely vindicated.

Irish people can receive awards but they have a slightly different designation - I forget what it's called. Could be 'honorary' or something of that kind.

Besides that, for all we know, while living in GB he may have taken British citizenship, although it's not necessary for Irish people in Britain.

itsjazzy · 11/08/2022 14:13

Floisme · 11/08/2022 13:20

Do you think so? I've just read the post concerned again and the poster criticises the lawyer for not being on top of the issue, for talking as if the Tavi had already closed, and for confusing sex and gender.
I didn't hear the interview so I can't say whether or not I agree with that judgement but, if that's correct then they all sound like valid concerns.
This board feels very spiky at the moment.

I think @MalagaNights is probably right about the law firm being pretty bad, their main business recently has been claiming compensation for people who've had a diesel car between 2009-2020 and they don't seem to be very good at that.

Tavistock clinic to be sued by 1000 families
NecessaryScene · 11/08/2022 14:14

"The puberty blockers are usually reversible" is a political statement rather than a medical or scientific one hewouldwouldnthe.

Well, "puberty blockers are reversible" does have a very specific medical meaning, which is that the chemical castration they perform isn't permanent, unlike physical castration.

Effectively you can "reattach" the gonads later. But that's not going to undo the effect of having had no functional gonads during puberty.

At a less critical time of life, such as when used briefly for precocious puberty, or if used on an adult sex offender, it might make sense to say the overall process is roughly "reversible" - a temporary lack of hormones is less of a big deal.

But actually blocking hormones throughout the whole of puberty is something else entirely. It's blocking an entire development stage.

LizzieSiddal · 11/08/2022 14:22

Gosh I’ve just heard this news, it’s been a long time coming but never underestimate determine women and some men! Had a bit of a cry at Graham’s comment, which is the most liked. I bloody well hope he’s able to carry on with he career, the musical first please!

Also I’m so interested to hear Little Ojs and the Guardians comments on this development.

Lovelyricepudding · 11/08/2022 14:23

'Greedy no win no fee ambulance chasing lawyers' only take on cases they feel are an almost certainty they will win. They don't want to work for free.

Floisme · 11/08/2022 14:27

itsjazzy thank you but equally I'm not going to base my assessment on some random tweeters I've never heard of.

What I'm saying is that any lawyers who take this case on are going to face resistance the likes of which we have never seen before. They will need to be at the very top of their game and I don't think it's helpful to interpret any criticism or questioning of them as 'having a problem with female lawyer' or TRA-ish'. If we adopt that mindset then we will lose.

Lovelyricepudding · 11/08/2022 14:30

puberty blockers are reversible only in so far as the impact on the production of sex hormones is 'reversed' when stopped ie. It doesn't permanently block the production of sex hormones in the way say a full hysterectomy would. What isn't reversed is the impact of not having those sex hormones on the body. So osteoporosis, brain maturation etc.

Of course negligence cases can cope with increase risk of harm. If your employer knowingly and repeatedly exposed you to asbestos you don't need to wait until you have died of mesothelioma before your estate can sue for negligence.