Here’s my Newsnight interview with the dull bits taken out.
Thanks to Melissa Mallows on Facebook for the following.
This is great to watch again in light of yesterday's judgement, which has all these references to children being experimented on.
Para 28: "We note here that we find it surprising that such data was not collated in previous years given the young age of the patient group, the experimental nature of the treatment and the profound impact that it has".
para 134: "Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment."
Para 143: "We entirely accept that the fact that a treatment is experimental, or that the long-term outcomes are not yet known, does not of itself prevent informed consent being given. Otherwise no experimental treatment could ever be consented to. However, the combination here of lifelong and life-changing treatment being given to children, with very limited knowledge of the degree to which it will or will not benefit them, is one that gives significant grounds for concern."
para 148: "Secondly, at present, it is right to call the treatment experimental or innovative in the sense that there are currently limited studies/evidence of the efficacy or long-term effects of the treatment."
para 152: "Given the long term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment."
Thanks Graham Linehan for reminding us how awful the BBC is on this matter, as a whole.