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?

The NHS website wording is much more cautious than that.

They reference GIDS claiming its a physically reversible treatment if stopped, but caveat that with all the unknowns.

Given the lack of record keeping at GIDS, including a lack of follow up with patients, that's all it is, a claim.

Im glad to see progress. But I'm a bit torn, I'm not so sure about this, actual aspect.

One couple I know pushed really hard, got a diagnosis privately of body dysmorphia and puberty blocked for their ds2 transitioning to a dd, within a couple of weeks of their dc announcing it.

So which clinic are they gonna blame in years to come? Sue them because the parents pushed so hard? Even though we all now know some of the side effects. How is that the clinics fault.

I agree. This litigation attempt is fraught with difficulties (I do have direct experience with medical negligence) and seems to me a cynical attempt to reel families in with the promise of ££££ when in fact the burden of proof to win any such case is loaded against the litigants. To me it's just adding to the distress and trauma these kids and their parents have gone through. Believe me the negligence process is almost as traumatic as the actual injury. The concentration should be on helping the children/patients with psychological counselling. The type they should,have been given initially.

Doctors should be used to patients pushing them for things that aren't in their long term interest and saying no. If private gender clinics start getting sued I have little sympathy for them as in my experience they have been very poor at any sort of objective psychological assessment and discussion of the long term consequences of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones (and the paucity of evidence) and have been more ideologically driven than the NHS services

Whatever the difficulties this is what will stop kids being harmed. Here and eventually in Canada, USA etc.

There is no other medical treatment with unproven benefit and proven risks that is provided on demand. Particularly to kids and particularly where the effects are permanent and life-changing.

Whatever the pitfalls and ins and outs this is progress.

To me it's just adding to the distress and trauma these kids and their parents have gone through. Believe me the negligence process is almost as traumatic as the actual injury.

But isn't that a price worth paying if we want to win this war?

If of interest, here’s the info sheet and consent form for puberty blockers from 2020.

(Will need to do this in two posts as there are 5 screenshots)

And last two…

Doctors should be used to patients pushing them for things that aren't in their long term interest and saying no

There's a fairly large group of middle-aged people who would like some form of hormone treatment, whether it's thyroid or their sex hormones (HRT for women, some testosterone for men). By and large their GPs have no difficulty at all in refusing those treatments, altering dosages, switching to (say) T3 etc.

GPs can be quite frustrated by the scarcity of options for treating chronic pain. Some of these options diminish as new evidence-based guidelines are produced that downgrade the evidence for previously available treatments.

GPs in the UK tend to follow guidelines that deprecate the use of sleeping medications and similar hypnotics.

It's comparatively few areas where doctors have much difficulty in refusing patient requests…

This is the lead barrister:

www.normantonchambers.com/people/24-thomas-goodhead/

www.lawgazette.co.uk/lawyer-in-the-news/lawyer-in-the-news-tom-goodhead-pgmbm/5113217.article

He looks to have a background in medical negligence

Interview with Times Radio

This was so interesting to see!
Thanks rogdmum.
I don't know what you think, but this sounds to me like more like what Cass review recommends- do you think that the Tavi went far from this due to massive upsurge in referrals and inability to cope or because of lobby group pressure?- I notice this was made/posted in 2018.

Gatherly - so pleased that Keira's brave fight helped your daughter. ❤️

Not if it's a cynical attempt by ambulance chasers to make money of the back of patients who will struggle to have a legal case. Some will, and deserve compensation but it's enough that this clinic is exposed as pushing a dangerous agenda.

but it's enough that this clinic is exposed as pushing a dangerous agenda.

It's only enough if the NHS do completely overhaul the treatment pathway as Dr Cass recommends.

@rogdmum That seems to be a fairly good informed consent form that the young person signed. If they'd had an assessment to gauge their competency (Gillick competency) then legal action will be difficult. On paper the warnings are clear, psychological assessment appears to have taken place, and systems in place to monitor the known side effects. I doubt there would be a legal leg to stand on, unless there was pressure to go ahead with treatment, or lax psychological pressure or other factors we are unaware of.

The evidence now is more solid that PB don't improve gender dysphoria but the case would rest in what the knowledge was when the treatment started.

The right or wrong of gender reassignment is not something a court would entertain, purely look at negligence and causality. I am just pleased the tide is turning (not enough though) and vulnerable children are being looked at holistically rather than just their genitals.

The clinic have said something like 99% of children who start puberty blockers, then go on to cross sex hormones.

And, I believe, that part of the Keira Bell JR was about assessing Gillick competency at the onset of puberty, for that very reason.

In terms of assessing Gillick competency, how would you do that, what criteria would you use, do you think, to explain never being able to have an orgasm, or being infertile, to say a 10-year-old?

@Datun Well I obviously don't know what their assessment criteria was, or how long the psychological assessment was or to what depth. Neither do you but they would be aware of GC.

Surely what the legal case will look at are all these questions and whether it is proven. Presumably parents would,be involved in this process? It's for the experts to untangle if they want to run a class action, but I think the majority will fail the negligence test.

There was quite a lot about Gillick competency in the care about Keira bell review. Iirc the judge did not seem under the impression that a child of 10 would understand the loss of orgasm, or fertility.

The reason I ask is that you say legal action would be difficult if they were assessed to be Gillick competent. I believe the review showed that they weren't, which is why it would be down to the individual doctors' responsibility.

i'm trying to remember, but initially I believe the judge said puberty blockers would need to be court approved per each individual child. That was overturned to say that the doctors needed to accept responsibility. Whether that's the GIDS clinicians, or the endocrinologists, I can't quite remember, but I think it was the endocrinologists.

*case not care

The Times Radio interview is interesting. The presenter talks about distinguishing children who are genuinely trans. We need someone to define what that actually means because to the uninformed listener it would likely indicate a child 'born in the wrong body' or with some innate condition. I don't buy either of those definitions- I'd go as far as saying there is no such thing as a trans child.

Same.

There are of course children who may go on to decide to undergo cosmetic treatment to approximate the other sex as adults.

But trying to guess who they are, call them "trans children" and give them that treatment early makes no more sense than trying to identify children who will get tattoos as adults, calling them "tattoo children" and giving them those tattoos early.

The Times Radio interview is interesting. The presenter talks about distinguishing children who are genuinely trans. We need someone to define what that actually means because to the uninformed listener it would likely indicate a child 'born in the wrong body' or with some innate condition. I don't buy either of those definitions- I'd go as far as saying there is no such thing as a trans child.

"Trans child" = 'Child whose psychological distress has been interpreted through the lens of gender ideology'.

Can you stop saying this? Firstly the NHS website is not evidence based. Second, we know, and everyone working at gender clinics knows that they never reverse puberty blockers. Thirdly, even if they are eventually reversed they still have significant side effects that can be objectively documented in a patient.

And finally, any patient who would be joining such a class action would by definition be someone who did not stop puberty blockers and went on wrong sex hormones. If they didn’t do that then there would be much less likelihood of seeking redress for long term harm. So it doesn’t matter if you falsely believe puberty blockers are reversed, because none of these cases had that happen.

This case will not be hard to prove because of the harm; it will be easy to demonstrate a cohort of young adults who are infertile and sexually dysfunctional and demonstrate the distress caused by still unknown effects on brain functioning.

The case will hinge on whether this was considered “standard of care”. The defendants will say “Your Honour, we woz just doing what all other gender clinics and gender guidelines woz doing!”

The key will be demonstrating that WPATH and EPATH are not and have never been acceptable standard bearers for care for children.

It is a pretty awful informed consent form. For a start it does not explain what puberty is or any of the changes that happen other than changing shape that will also be stopped. It doesn't make it clear that it is impossible to change sex so none of the treatments will do that. It plays down bone density loss. I says it improves mood when the evidence says otherwise. It fails to mention the dearth of evidence. It fails to mention contraindications such as poor mental health (feeling suicidal!). The reference to affecting ability to change your mind should be clearly spelled out "it cements you on the journey to cross sex hormones'. Indeed didn't MHRA stipulate that they must not say it gives time to think because it clearly doesn't? It fails to mention it is experimental. If fails to clearly and neutrally lay out alternative courses of action and the outcome from those (80% resolve gender dysphoria post puberty) or the negative implications should you with to continue to surgery. It says nothing about how your peers will continue through puberty so taking this drug will set you apart from your peers of both sexes. Getting a child to tick a box to say 'I understand' shows absolutely nothing about their level of understanding.