Just 4 days left to support whistleblower Susan Evans

[ChristinaXYZ]

Susan Evans gardening fund is way under where it needs to be and only has 4 days left.

The usual crowded place for justice. Searching:

Protect Teenagers From Harmful And Irreversible Medical Treatment

should help you locate her allotment.

.

Thanks OP, I have just donated. This is the same Susan Evans who helped Kiera Bell with her case, I've also heard her husband on some podcasts recently talk about the problems with the Tavistock.

Just a warning that the site will try and take a 20% 'tip' when you donate, so you have to scroll down and change it manually. They already get a small percentage of whatever is raised.

I have to be honest, as sympathetic as I am to her intentions, I don't think this case will succeed. The CQC's registration process derives from primary legislation (HSCA 2014 & as subsequently amended). It can't refuse to register providers that meet the registration criteria, which are about fitness to provide treatments, not about about the nature of treatments provided. It seems highly unlikely that a JR will set this aside, because to do so would pave the way to the CQC having to assess and determine the effectiveness of every treatment given by every provider, which is unrealistic and not what the registration process is intended to achieve.

The CQC does not determine which treatments are clinically appropriate. Where it does enforce (through inspection/rating) the provision of certain treatment pathways, this is because they have been made national policy by the DHSC, NHSE or NICE etc, not because the CQC has taken a view on what providers should or shouldn't do.

NB, I am not saying this is how things should be. I am just saying this is how they are.

With Ann Sinnott’s JR of EHRC she didn’t win, but there were huge changes there around that same time. I believe the process of needing to get their evidence together exposed the need for an overhaul. Crispin Blunt was out Baroness Faulkner was in. This seemed to be a huge turning point in the way the government handled the capture by the gender woo, so even if a JR doesn’t succeed, it draws important attention to an issue - for example, Kiera Bell, and can bring changes anyway.

bump

Good point about the tip. Thank you.

Excatly. It remains really important to keep shining the spotlight.

CQC assessment of evidence based practice could be interesting. Though my cynical head is aware that mermaids evidence and stonewall law will be presented.

www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-regulation/providers/assessment/single-assessment-framework/effective/delivering-evidence-based-care

Thanks for sharing

Yes, this requirement, which is assessed as part of the inspection process, is likely to be a more fruitful means of holding the CQC to account, than challenging their decision to register a provider.

I don't mean any criticism of Susan - I think she is awesome! But obviously she started this pre-Cass, and the world has changed.

Gardened. Some cases win, some lose, all move things in the right direction.

This - thank you!

Email update received:

"After the publication of the final Cass Review, many were wondering if this request for judicial review would even be necessary. There was hope that perhaps the CQC would take the Cass findings into account and review their decision, Sadly not.We have now received the CQC’s defence in licensing GenderPlus Hormone Clinic – the first private paediatric hormone clinic led by ex- Tavistock clinicians. Assurances of the Secretary of State for Health that she would be ensuring patient safety from this highly controversial hormonal treatment have not filtered through to the CQC. They have instructed a KC to defend their decision and state the Final Cass Review is irrelevant. Despite the NHS now requiring an independent second opinion from a multidisciplinary team before treatment can be authorised, GenderPlus Hormone Clinic treat vulnerable patients without that safety net. The Secretary of State has also decided not to get involved in the case despite being notified.We are now waiting for the Court to decide whether it is arguable that the CQC has acted unlawfully. If permission is granted then the case will go to trial. This case is crucial to protect vulnerable young people from a highly controversial treatment which is delivered in the private sector without adequate protections in place. Thank you to those who have donated to this case thus far and if you can let others know about this latest development and that we still need to keep this in the headlines, that would be fab.Many thanks once again - Sue"