(From a thread by The Evidence-Based Social Work Association)
From the judgement on #KieraBell case.
"The sole legal issue in the case is the circumstances in which a child or young person may be competent to give valid consent to treatment in law and the process by which consent to the treatment is obtained."
"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. "
In other words, why did Tavistock not collate data for evidence?
With reference to high levels of autism: "Again, we have found this lack of data analysis – and the apparent lack of investigation of this issue - surprising. "
A pattern emerging of lack of scientific rigour perhaps?
And again the sloppiness "The court asked for statistical material on the number, if any, of young people who had been assessed to be suitable for puberty blockers but who were not prescribed them .... Ms Morris could not produce any statistics on whether this situation had ever arisen."
And again: "No precise numbers are available from GIDS (as to the percentage of patients who proceed from PBs to CSH"
And this is unreal,
"We were told that the defendant did not have any data recording the proportion of those on puberty blockers who progress to cross-sex hormones"
IN other words, Tavistock did not collate data on one of their key medical interventions!
And finally part of the conclusion.
"A child under 16 may only consent to the use of medication intended to suppress puberty where he or she is competent to understand the nature of the treatment. That includes an understanding of the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life-changing consequences for a child.
A question. How can a child consent to experimental treatment when the clinic administering that treatment does not itself understand the implications of giving that treatment?
The reason being it does not collate data on that treatment.
Another question. In what other branch of medicine would an NHS be allowed to get away with such sloppy practice around data and evidence?
Why are children with gender dysphoria exempted from the usual safeguards?