Helen Webberley is at the Royal Courts of Justice today (14 March 2023) - Tribunal Tweets

[IwantToRetire]

Sure there are earlier threads about this but came across this by chance.

Not sure that it might not have ended

See twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1635585082747412482

BBC article www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64956259

Early on in the tweet thread webberly's barrister says:

"PC was 11 years old, how can fertility be reasonably discussed with a child that age but this is the ‘failing’ that lead to HW’s finding of misconduct, impairment and sanctions."

It's amazing to me. I think HW's barrister is arguing 1) it's not possible to reasonably discuss implications of lost fertility with a child if 11 2) therefore it's no 'failing' if the clinician doesn't discuss it 3) but still the 11 year old can consent to losing fertility.

Here's the morning and afternoon sessions on Thread Reader...

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1635585082747412482.html

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1635639531041947650.html

It's ended and judgment is reserved.

Their angle seems to be that PC was Gillick competent but chose to delegate the consent process to the parents. But as GMC lawyer points out there was no evidence that this happened.

I'd forgotten that the expert for HW had maintained that PBs are fully reversible. Did the GMC not have their own witness to contradict that evidence? Surely they wouldn't get away with PBs are "fully reversible" now. Does anyone still hold this position?

Her argument really does seem as you say to contradict itself. I would expect that argument to come from a prosecutor not a defender.
What these people have done in the name of virue signalling is beyond words.

Thanks for the heads up on this, I'd have missed it otherwise.

These bits are interesting. Does "remit" mean that the case would be reheard does anyone know?

J: Well, I don't only do easy cases. To what extent can I allow my own view of someone 10 years old might understand about fertility? Am struggling a bit; don't know much about the child. All anonymous but ... child is adopted, birth mother heroin addict. Child is dyslexic.

AB: There is a finding of assessment of competence.
J: Yes but re fertility ...
AB: Psychologist had spent some time with C before HW say. Tribunal refer to this.
J: True.

AB: It would not be about permissibility of your deciding, it's about the correctness of the MPTS findings. I say, overwhelmingly possible for you to decide that HW should have had face to face, but, that HW's own course also acceptable.
J: Yes and 200 mile trip. Easier by email

AB: But tribunal don't put the emails into right context.
J: You are not saying I should remit to MPTS for reconsideration?
AB: No
J: Mr Mant, for GMC? If I find error, should case be remitted?
[missed answer]

J: If this were erasure not 2 months. Very important case. Think I can't send it back. Can I have copy of each consent forms, and that sections of the rulings that pertain to them.

FFS! They're talking about a girl of eleven!

AB [Appellants barrister, ie representing Webberley] - back to the email chronology. Series of emails, discussions of fertility, PC [Patient C, the child] adamant that doesn’t want children, and discussions of egg harvesting, would need to return to female puberty. 2 points demonstrated: PC’s mother does understand the implications on fertility…
That these effects are reversible. And mother understands that.
Email from HW about the ongoing discussions of egg harvesting, fertility etc. Response from mother: wouldn’t that be difficult? Question never really answered by HW according GMC.

And of course the whole nonsense about reversibility is moot, since puberty blockers almost inevitably lead to cross-sex hormones and infertility, which is accepted somewhere else in these transcripts. (IIRC, it says something such as, to proceed on the basis that infertility is very likely.)

Absolutely monstrous!

Yes, remit means the judge would send it back to MPT to rehear some or all of the case (could be all, including findings of fact, or just the sanction). The alternative is for the judge to make their own decision on findings and sanction in place of the MPT decision.

This bit give me hope. The judge can obviously see that HW lacks insight. HW could be back practising by now if she'd completed her month's suspension and promised to be a bit more careful in future when reviewed. But instead she's adamant that she did nothing wrong and so she's unlikely to do anything differently next time. Hopefully the Judge won't want to be the person who unleashes an unrepentant Webberley back into the sphere of prescribing PBs to 11 year olds. The Judge must be aware of what's going on re Cass and the Tavistock. The current climate might make them more likely to err on the side of caution...

J - the tribunal makes a mess of several issues, but then comes to the important point of consenting to fertility. This is a reference to the need for a face to face discussion. It is a complete mess.

There’s another thundering bad point on timing that HW loses either way.

But there is a very good point towards the end. It is not fixating on the lost opportunity on day1; but that it is focused on the lost opportunities throughout the process. And HW has not accepted that gender dysphoria treatment is a process and better communication and Explanation would be very helpful.
Demonstrates a lack of insight and resistance to learning that is concerning.

Oops bold fail last para

Webberley is actually arguing that an 11 year old could even possibly know if they might want children in the future?

bloody hell.

Loads of 20-something people are pretty sure they never want to have kids. A decade later quite a few of those people will have changed their minds and had kids.

People are crap at knowing how they’ll fee
about something in advance, more so the further in advance you ask them. Pre-pubescent children are likely to be even worse at this kind of thing, especially when the process of puberty changes so much biologically that affects this stuff.

Doctors should understand this.

Remember when Susie Green tweeted about the 'removal of the sterilisation clause'; is that what they are going after?

Psychological assessment [...] is not required for cisgender surgeries of ANY type.

Wrong. Bariatric (weight loss) surgery, for example, includes psychological assessment beforehand.

Also, it’s missing the point that the psychiatric assessment is entirely relevant if it’s surgery to remove or adapt perfectly healthy body parts because they don’t match how you feel inside.

If you need a tonsillectomy, it’s to address a problem with your tonsils. So the relevant assessments are to do with that.

For a double mastectomy, the assessment criteria will differ depending on the purpose of the mastectomy. If it’s because you have cancer, it’s an entirely different thing than if you are a trans man who feels their breasts are an issue.

The only way to actually assess the latter is psychological.

Of course, that fool green believes it should just be an on demand service with no assessments. Like ordering takeaway or something.

Is cisgender surgery where you have physical surgery to ensure your gender matches your sex? Like brain surgery?
Or to make sure that your sex matches your gender? Like... trans surgery? I'm so confused. I'm beginning to think that there's no such thing as a sex matching a gender.

I suspect that Green and her ilk simply cannot grasp that most surgeries have absolutely nothing to do with gender at al.

Sex might be important in various ways to the surgery. But gallbladder removal is not ‘cisgender’ surgery. It’s gallbladder surgery. Dysfunctional gallbladders don’t care which part of the sparkly rainbow most appeals to you.

The Judge must be aware of what's going on re Cass and the Tavistock.

That seems to be a very dangerous assumption to make. I imagine the majority of people have no idea about either of these. And remember the equal treatment bench book training judges have promoting gender ideology?

Is cisgender surgery where you have physical surgery to ensure your gender matches your sex?

I’m assuming Cisgender surgery probably just means stuff like Breast augmentation or penis extension or other unnecessary aesthetic surgeries that aren’t available on insurance or NHS for “cis” people.

Excuse the random caps

“Surgeon thinks there should be no barriers to them making money”

A girl aged 11 with ASD would not necessarily comprehend at the same level as an average 11 year old.

If Helen Webberly had any sense she would’ve accepted that two month suspension and gone back to work as soon as it was spent.

That she hasn’t done that seems
to suggest her professional insight is even more lacking than that of Adrian Harrop.

Am I getting a wrong end of a stick or is psych assessment required for any/all cosmetic surgery?

See link to a UK hospital on the subject: hmtsthughs.org/standard-policy-for-psychological-assessments/

Considering 'gender affirmation surgery' is an extreme type of cosmetic surgery, how can anyone argue for removing psychological assessment for it?

Money, money, money.

Same with selling drugs.

It doesn't really work like that. She would have needed to attend a review hearing at the end of the two months suspension to demonstrate insight and show that she was unlikely to make the same mistake again. But because she hasn't accepted she has done anything wrong it would be unlikely that a review panel would lift her suspension because they would see her as likely to repeat her behaviour.