Tavistock clinic to be sued by 1000 families

[WarriorN]

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?

@Floisme the reviews are from google, they're no Old Square

I've been looking at this from the perspective of numbers.

We are talking about a patient cohort of 19,000 over a 33-year period. Pogust Goodhead suggests it is going to be about a thousand litigants. That's 5%.

A 5% return rate is definitely doable, even within a patient cohort snapped within a short time and place -- because if you ask any cohort to do something risk free for a potential benefit, you will always get at least 2-4% that will say yes.

The issue that Tavistock and NHS faces here is that this cohort spans 33 years. This isn't just about teenagers that went through GIDS in the last five to ten years (the Keira Bells and Tulips); it's also people who may have gone through GIDS in the 90s and 00s who may very well be middle aged now (the forty-five-year-old Keira Bells and Tulips).

And that is going to mean people who took puberty blockers decades ago, only to find, ten to twenty years later, that it has damaged their health and their lives in ways they were not informed it would or could. They are going to be the people who have lived the medium to long term reality of what these drugs did to them: people that have failed to find partners, secure regular employment, found themselves infertile, in premature menopause, dealing with weak bone density as a 40-something etc.

And, to my mind, that will shoot the numbers up.

The question I would ask is how many of those 19,000 patients are not going to litigate? And why would they not litigate?

Because, not to be interested in litigation, they would have to be those patients seen by GIDS who weren't given blockers or x-sex hormones, or were given those drugs but they did not do any damage.

So then it becomes: how many GIDS patients were not prescribed blockers and/or x-sex hormones? How likely is it that there are patients who took these drugs, but no observable damage was done? Because that will give a better idea of how many potential litigants there are.

I know nothing about medical negligence cases. Could there be a case for patients who effectively aged out of the Tavi (ie older adolescents who were briefly seen just to be told they’d be put on the adult waiting list without any therapy) and went straight to Adult Services where there is scant, if any, gatekeeping? Ie they ultimately ended up damaged by adult services but feel they should have had counselling at the Tavi?

Or for those who were effectively turned away once it was clear they didn’t want the medical route - ie it was a one way conveyer belt for the medical path and if you didn’t stay on it, there was nothing for you? Obviously no physical damage done there, but if other conditions were ignored and just gender focused on, would there be a case for any worsening mental health problems? I’m guessing not, but it is a shame as the Tavi did so much damage on top of placing children/adolescents on the medical path.

This is going aways back, but it’s an eye opener for anyone who hasn’t seen it. Aidan Kelly formerly of the Tavi openly talks about how little they knew about puberty blockers. Watch it from the 15 minute mark. I did a Twitter thread ages ago with some quotes:

twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1276821640203186176?s=21&t=Vv4jUUGyfwOccLrmuUqUoQ

Then I stand corrected about Twitter but my response is otherwise the same. But thank you for your trouble.

I suggested they contact Trans gender trend for advice ffs!

It's ridiculous and undermines any rational argument when even any slight criticism gets you labelled someone who has a problem with women or who is like a TRA.

I didn't say the law firm was bad.

Just that the lawyer didn't seem at this point to have a full understanding of all the issues, and they needed to get fully over the brief like Suella had done.

I'm sick of being used as a football in the pathetic tribal warfare of both sides.

I'll say what I think is true whether the feminists call me a women hater, or the TRAs gleefully seize and twist a statement in desperation.

Both as equally pathetic.

This.

Couldn’t see any reason to think the poster had problems with female lawyers.

Its not uncommon for two people to read hear the same thing and come away with two very different views of the characters involved - anyone who has ever been in a book club knows this.

There was no justification for thinking that poster was sexist, rather than just two people experienced the same thing and formed different interpretations, and the common reading of that ‘sexism’ accusation would be that it was intended as an insult.

This is such an important moment. Women on here have known since this was first exposed that this would be the outcome. I have a (probably vain) hope that the cynical use of teenage girls and children by all the middle aged male transitioners who push this via their lobby groups, their careers in the law, police, education & government are somehow held to account for their cynical use of children in order to promote their preferred ideology.

And schools which have followed the affirmation model too.

I read that there was another report from 2006 which said much the same as the Cass report. It was buried and the Tavistock carried on If this is true, who buried it ? Was it TRAs? The clinic? The Government? Civil Service acting alone? I think it matters because if true it means that they KNEW they were harming youngsters.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about side effects on here: they are not theoretical risks - they are know risks. So something listed as a very common side effect will be experienced by between 10 and 100% of those taking the drug. Those listed as common side effects will be experienced by between 1% and 10%. These drugs have a long list of serious common and very common side effects which a substantial portion of claimed will (not might) experience.

These drugs are also not licensed for this use -something I am sure the drug companies are very happy with as they are then not liable for harms when used this way.

You didn’t in anyway come across as TRA-ish or sexist.
There’s an excellent article on the ‘ academic paper on masturbating to child poem’ thread on how partisan people have become which leads them to throw around wild slurs as the reactively take sides. The accusatory sexist and TRA-ish posts reminded me of that article.

These drugs are also not licensed for this use -something I am sure the drug companies are very happy with as they are then not liable for harms when used this way.
Exactly, the liable party would be prescribing physician. So maybe the GIDS Drs wouldn't be liable. It would be the endocrinologist writing the prescription

I'm cautiously optimistic about this development though I have a lot of questions.

I don't know enough about medical negligence for example to understand the threshold of proof.

I'm also curious about the numbers. Getting to 1000 appears feasible in theory but I simply don't think we have the data on how many of the 19k went on to take PB's.

Equally, what validity any waivers signed wrt risk/side effects may/may not have.

I'm in no doubt that PB's are dangerous drugs but we are still afaik lacking proper data on their impact. Is that very lack of data significant in the context of them being prescribed as the risks could never be fully understood?

However, the fact we are at this point might make a lot of people pause moving forward.

Continuing to supply such drugs with a class action pending surely must make the NHS at least re-think its position, even in the context of the Cass report and the decision to close GIDS.

This was a feature of the Bell appeal.

It was clear the buck stopped with the endocrinologist.

Whilst the TRA's claimed the win, they couldn't see the inherent problem, which is why would an endocrinologist prescribe PB's on the recommendation of GIDS, when the case not only exposed significant flaws in the service, but also that if it went FUBAR GIDS were off the hook.

Thanks Helleofabore. A routine eye test picked it up which I'd brought forward due to him experiencing headaches and nausea. Unfortunately IIH is insidious in nature and he was already in a bed place by the time he was seen. I feel terribly guilty for that. The optic nerve swelling generally takes your peripheral vision first, so you may not notice it. He's had times when he's temporarily lost his sight but fortunately it has come back. We don't know what the longer term holds.

IIH is vanishingly rare in children, around 60 kids a year are diagnosed in the UK. The aim is to get kids in remission but unfortunately it is generally a lifelong condition and you have to live in the knowledge that your kids' sight is constantly at risk. It's not uncommon for children with IIH to be homeschooled or on part time timetables due to their illness. It's an absolutely awful bloody disease.

"Already on dodgy ground " is an interesting phrase to use here because if these are even just hypothetical consequences of puberty blockers it's a very, very bad look for do called medical professionals to go down that path with a child.

On the basis of a tenuous at best link to distress caused by "being in the wrong body ".

Which talking of things which are difficult to prove how the hell can this be proven to them be medicated in a child ?!!

I know nothing about medical negligence cases. Could there be a case for patients who effectively aged out of the Tavi (ie older adolescents who were briefly seen just to be told they’d be put on the adult waiting list without any therapy) and went straight to Adult Services where there is scant, if any, gatekeeping? Ie they ultimately ended up damaged by adult services but feel they should have had counselling at the Tavi?

I did wonder about this myself!

No, it would have nothing to do with the proposed class action. Any case would be based on their adult experience. If the Tavistock case passed the threshold for action, then may be worth trying

The bar for proving medical negligence is very high, and involves proving two things: a breach of the duty of care and causation.

There's a decent explanation here:

www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/causation-medical-negligence/

I'm worried by the PP's description of the lawyer talking about this case on the radio. She sounded pretty clueless. There is no way a law firm will win a case like this if they're not on top of it. If I were a Tavi parent I would go to a reputable medical negligence firm, not a general firm like this. It makes me wonder how many, if any, have actually signed up to this action or whether the law firm is just flying a kite.

I said usually reversible. the long term effects are not known and admitted as such. At 19 they would have had to be taking them long term. Would that be reversible with testosterone? I don't know but I'm talking about medical negligence. Long term issues are debatable and even the bone density issue is not as simple. https://segm.org/sites/default/files/20210323Evidence%2BreviewwGnRH%2BanaloguesFor%2BuploaddFinal_download.pdf

"Does this read like the guidelines for something harmless?"

Yes it does, the first part is from the MSDS (Material Safety DataSheet) for leuprolide acetate as a bulk powder, not as administered, which in any case is done by doctors or nurses.

You will find the same accidental release measures in the MSDSs for bulk powders of everyday substances like citric acid, that doesn't mean you need to wear a hazmat suit to peel an orange.

The second part is about avoiding anyone but the patient receiving a dose or partial dose, this doesn't mean the medication is dangerous only that it is potent. You would find the same type of warning with other potent medications, e.g. long term contraceptives like Depo-Provera.

Before accusing people of having a problem with female lawyers it would probably be a good idea to search the user name. I know the search function doesn’t work that well now but if you put MalagaNights into it you will find lots of threads that make it clear such remarks are uncalled for. It doesn’t take a minute to do.

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
@Lovelyricepudding
You need to look up the elements of medical negligence. The negligence must cause the damage. If no damage is caused then there is no negligence.

@PronounssheRa But puberty blocking hormones usually are reversible according to the nhs website which is evidence based. The longer term use is problematic, and cross sex hormones are not reversible if a male grows breasts.

Wow. It's finally happening.