This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Ajfweb: Thanks for creating this article. The reference I added for the statement that Ms Bell approved the judgment [ref 6] is the same BBC reference as for the 1st sentence of the section ‘Content’[ref 4]. So I think that these should be combined, but I don’t know how to do this. Can you help? Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I have found this [1]. The post of December 7 says that permission to appeal has been refused. I can’t find this inf in any suitable source. Has anyone else got inf on this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The only positive reaction to judgement cited is from the claimant (does this even need to be here?), while there are a number of very negative ones from other organizations. A little but of reading shows that there are many reactions to this, widely reported, judgement. I don't think there should be a "reactions" section, at most just a single pair of positive/negative quotes from organizations would make sense. Maneesh ( talk) 06:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Three weeks have passed. Are there any indications as to when the judgement will be handed down? How long do cases like this normally take? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 21:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's nearly two months on and we're still waiting. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The infobox should be updated to reflect the appeals ruling. Kaihsu ( talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be refactored to foreground the appeal ruling as the latest situation instead of the lower instance, and summarize what the appeal court held. Kaihsu ( talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the infobox. Likewise the leading paragraphs should be reworked. Kaihsu ( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that the legal opinion attributed to Dennis Kavanagh has been removed on the basis that Lesbian and Gay News has been described as ‘unreliable’ for factual news. But the opinion is a legal opinion, not news, and I cannot see why any question of the reliability (or otherwise) of the publication for news should disqualify it as a source for attributed opinion. I also note that many of the contributors to the previous discussion [3] on the publication seem to be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is a hate group, whereas in fact, it is a registered charity. I have no opinion on whether Lesbian and Gay News is reliable as a newspaper, since I don’t read it, but I think that the addition to this article was useful, and I support its reinstatement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Eievie: @
Sideswipe9th: I see that there is a discussion going on on Eievie’s Talk page which is relevant to the discussion here. It includes references to
WP:SECONDARY:' "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
Because LGN is not a WP:RS it's inappropriate to use it in an article.'
But, since the opinion was attributed to Mr Kavanagh, our article would not be making a "claim" about the judgment, but merely reporting that this is Mr Kavanagh’s professional opinion of the judgment.
The comment by Mr Kavanagh is not a statement of fact in the usual sense, and neither is it an editorial opinion in the usual sense. It is a professional opinion about a legal judgment. As such, it should be attributed, but I see no reason why it should not be added to this article, since its reliability is not affected by whether the publication is reliable as a news source. Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. As we've both referred to, per the discussion on the WP:RS noticeboard LGN is not a WP:RS. WP:SECONDARY makes it clear that Wikipedia policy is that articles should rely on reliable secondary sources, and that an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim can only be added if that claim is published by a reliable source. To use the quote from Dennis would be WP:UNDUE due to the unreliability of that site as a source. As I said on talk page, if the same opinion had been posted in a reliable source, it could be worthy of consideration. The quality of Denis' statement is immaterial at this point, as the issue right now is over the source in which it is published. That said, I do have opinions that run counter to yours about his commentary, as I do not believe his comments to be an accurate representation of the judgement. I would elaborate, but I'd be skirting WP:NOR if I did so because as you say, there are not many if any reliable sources who have done an analysis on the judgement.
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. From WP:DUE
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. From WP:RS
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors. The emphasis in those quotes is mine.
I suppose this is now res judicata, with no possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court? Kaihsu ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Nothing here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal.html Kaihsu ( talk) 19:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
did not "raise an arguable point of law". 39 Essex Chambers has a bit more, saying that Bell's legal team wanted to challenge the Court of Appeal ruling due to misinterpretations/misapplications of Gillick, but is still very brief overall.
Now it’s here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-april-may-2022.html – Kaihsu ( talk) 17:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
While we have a reactions section to the original ruling, we do not yet have one for the appeal judgement. Following on from the discussion above about the opinion published in LGN, I'd like to propose adding the following reactions:
"We are delighted by today’s judgment. It will not only offer reassurance for trans young people and their parents, but everyone who values young people’s right to make decisions about their own healthcare in line with their evolving maturity and understanding."[1]
"We are pleased the court agreed that the rules governing consent must be applied the same way to transgender and gender diverse adolescents as they are to other adolescents who are making decisions about medical care"[2]
"The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinicians."[3]
"The medical landscape for young trans people in the UK has been bleak since Bell 1, which had a real and lasting chilling effect on referrals for puberty blockers. With the appeal in hand, it is hoped that NHS England will now turn its attention once again to the guidelines for referrals and update them in line with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. However, for children who have had to wait and experience distress and dysphoria for nine months, it is little consolation."[4]
The response by Brook is relatively short, and contextually this paragraph seemed like the best one to chose. I feel the same for the quotation from the Endocrine Society. For Marina Wheeler, I feel like this quotation sums up the effects of both the original ruling, and the appeal pretty succinctly. For Sandra Duffy's response, there may be better quotations in the article, I'm not sure. If you think you've spotted one feel free to suggest it. I haven't done an exhaustive search yet for other opinions or responses, but I hope this should get the ball rolling.
Source reliability wise, politics.co.uk is as far as I can tell generally seen as reliable, with some queries about dates of birth for politicians. NewsWise has been mentioned once in the WP:RSN archives, where it was pointed out that while it was online only and in blog format, it had both editorial standards and paid editors. Neither Irish Legal News nor UK Human Rights Blog have been mentioned in WP:RSN. Both sources have been used for citations in other articles however, and both opinion pieces are written by named legal professionals; a legal academic and lecturer at a UK university, and a QC who practices in public and human rights law. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
(a) From Helen Marshall, Chief Executive at Brook, one of the interveners in the case: "We are delighted by today’s judgment. It will not only offer reassurance for trans young people and their parents, but everyone who values young people’s right to make decisions about their own healthcare in line with their evolving maturity and understanding."
(b) By confirming that clinicians are able to use their professional judgment to evaluate an individual young person’s capacity to consent to the use of puberty blockers, today’s judgment crucially upholds the principle of Gillick competence which underpins practice across health, social care and many other areas of work with young people.
because it is more closely related to the actual decision. Also, if we are going to quote Brook, then we need to say that they were involved in the case, against Ms Bell.
(a) "We are pleased the court agreed that the rules governing consent must be applied the same way to transgender and gender diverse adolescents as they are to other adolescents who are making decisions about medical care.
(b) The ruling preserves access to medical treatment for transgender and gender diverse teenagers and protects the ability of physicians, not the courts, to determine the capacity of a person under 16 to consent to medical treatment.
which is a more accurate summary of the case, but is not actually a ‘reaction to the appeal’.
(a) The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinicians."
(b) [In Bell v Tavistock] ‘….the Court of Appeal advised judges to avoid formulating policy in an area of social and moral complexity.’
(c)“Judicial review,” it [the Court of Appeal] said “is not the forum to resolve contested issues of fact, causation and clinical judgment” and the [High] Court was wrong to decide between the evidence of competing experts without it being properly admitted or tested in cross-examination.
(d) In essence, the Court of Appeal found that the judges below [in the High Court] had stepped into the shoes of clinicians: it is “for doctors to decide on competence not judges”.
(e) …… Ms Bell is unlikely to be the only young person who has changed their mind about treatment. If this is right, a clinical negligence claim is just a matter of time. Unlike proceedings for judicial review, that will provide a forum where the court is required to make factual findings, form judgments about clinical practice, and resolve disputes between experts. On that occasion, the judges will have to decide.
(a) "The medical landscape for young trans people in the UK has been bleak since Bell 1, which had a real and lasting chilling effect on referrals for puberty blockers. With the appeal in hand, it is hoped that NHS England will now turn its attention once again to the guidelines for referrals and update them in line with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. However, for children who have had to wait and experience distress and dysphoria for nine months, it is little consolation."
This is a comment by a legal academic, but it reads like a comment from someone on one side of the controversy. It also includes the
weasel wording ‘it is hoped’ so we can’t even say that it is Dr Duffy who hopes etc. So I am against including this.
(b) Through the declaration and guidance issued in the [High Court] judgment, it set a near-impossibly high standard for competence to consent, including a requirement to understand the effects of cross-sex hormones – a treatment which is only prescribed to adults.
(c) The Court of Appeal disagreed profoundly with the findings of the Divisional [High] Court on both evidentiary and legal bases. Its decision to overturn found that the Divisional Court had relied on flawed expert evidence (Bell 2, 38), “implied factual findings that the Divisional Court was not equipped to make” (65), and was incorrect in issuing both its declaration of law and its guidance on the application (84 and 89).
(d) Of particular importance is the Court of Appeal’s finding that Gillick competence applies to puberty blockers in the same way that it would to any other medical decision.
... it was really pleasing [the CoA] was able to cut through the noise and make its judgment on the essential legal issues – reaffirming that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment, and confirming that it was wrong for the Divisional Court to make a declaration in the absence of any finding of unlawfulness.
Our strategy had to be to focus the courts on the specific legal issues raised and away from the moral controversy around the treatment of children for gender dysphoria.
Ok. Breaking this down into quotes by person.
"[stepping] into the shoes of clinicians". Can we work both into a reaction attributed to her?
likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.I think WEASEL only applies to wikivoice? As long as we make it clear that
it is hopedis Sandra's words, that should satisfy WEASEL. I do like alternative quotes C and D.
We were disappointed with the Divisional Court’s judgment. Despite making no finding of unlawfulness, the court still made a declaration of what, precisely, a child had to be able to weigh up before consenting to treatment with puberty blockersis a reaction to the original judgement and sets the stage for the appeal. I don't think it would be WP:SYNTH to include this quote there?
If we need to trim it for balance reasons, I'd be most in favour of the quotes from Brook, Wheeler, and Robertson. Two are directly connected to the appeal (Brook and Robertson) and one is an independent QC (Wheeler). But if we could work in all the ones we find acceptable, I don't think we need to worry so much about length. In the context of youth transgender healthcare in the UK, the original case and its appeal rulings are pretty significant, so having a reasonably detailed and cited appeal reactions section is warranted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh and that Law Society Gazette response is a great find! Especially if we can use it for both sections. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinician.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and said that the original claim for judicial review failed. They said that in the original judgment, the High Court had decided that Tavistock’s policy was not unlawful. Having decided this, the High Court did not have the power to issue any declaration, or issue guidance as to how doctors should approach the question of young people giving consent to treatment with puberty blockers. In some instances, a court could give advice in the form of a declaration, but this was only allowed where the court had decided that a party had acted unlawfully. The High Court had also gone against the general principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions on treatment if the doctor treating them considered that they were competent to do so ( Gillick competence).
reaffirming that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment, and confirming that it was wrong for the Divisional Court to make a declaration in the absence of any finding of unlawfulness.is a brief summary which would be more understandable by the general public than the Wheeler quote (a), which is aimed at lawyers.
‘….the Court of Appeal advised judges to avoid formulating policy in an area of social and moral complexity.Since this refers to the Court of Appeal, I don’t see how we could use it in the Reactions section for the original judgment. How are you thinking of framing it?
Don't worry about the delay. I've been wiped myself the last few days. I'd rather we take time to get it right, than rush and get it wrong.
The Bell 1 decision modified Gillick competence, but only with respect to the issuance of puberty-blocking medications and only where they are required by trans children. Through the declaration and guidance issued in the judgment, it set a near-impossibly high standard for competence to consent, including a requirement to understand the effects of cross-sex hormones – a treatment which is only prescribed to adults.. In the context of that paragraph, Duffy is talking about Bell 1, which was the High Court not the Court of Appeal. The inline clarifier
"[High Court]"provides that clarity without needing to include the full quote.
As figures before the Court show, treatment for gender dysphoria among children is increasing: in 2009 there were 97 referrals to the Tavistock clinic; in 2019 there were 2,519. Given these figures, Ms Bell is unlikely...(cont)The comment on Bell being not being the only detransitioner with regret needs some context as to why Wheeler is saying that, as even if the absolute rate of regretful detransition remains low, because of the increase in number of referrals there will be a corresponding increase in regretful detransitioners. If that makes sense? Though we may also want to add an inline Wikilink to Detransition in that sentence for related reading.
Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Queen's Counsel Marina Wheeler, reacting to the appeal ...? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
As a UK native, colloquially we use QC when referring to senior barristers more often than the fuller Queen's Counsel. Seeing it written as
Queen's Counsel
Marina Wheeler, reacting to the appeal ...
feels unnatural to me at least when writing in a British English perspective. I'd prefer to keep it as a postnomial, if we're keeping it. Are there any other UK law cases that have reaction sections on Wiki that we could use to establish precedent?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 03:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Ajfweb: Thanks for creating this article. The reference I added for the statement that Ms Bell approved the judgment [ref 6] is the same BBC reference as for the 1st sentence of the section ‘Content’[ref 4]. So I think that these should be combined, but I don’t know how to do this. Can you help? Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I have found this [1]. The post of December 7 says that permission to appeal has been refused. I can’t find this inf in any suitable source. Has anyone else got inf on this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The only positive reaction to judgement cited is from the claimant (does this even need to be here?), while there are a number of very negative ones from other organizations. A little but of reading shows that there are many reactions to this, widely reported, judgement. I don't think there should be a "reactions" section, at most just a single pair of positive/negative quotes from organizations would make sense. Maneesh ( talk) 06:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Three weeks have passed. Are there any indications as to when the judgement will be handed down? How long do cases like this normally take? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 21:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's nearly two months on and we're still waiting. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The infobox should be updated to reflect the appeals ruling. Kaihsu ( talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be refactored to foreground the appeal ruling as the latest situation instead of the lower instance, and summarize what the appeal court held. Kaihsu ( talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the infobox. Likewise the leading paragraphs should be reworked. Kaihsu ( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that the legal opinion attributed to Dennis Kavanagh has been removed on the basis that Lesbian and Gay News has been described as ‘unreliable’ for factual news. But the opinion is a legal opinion, not news, and I cannot see why any question of the reliability (or otherwise) of the publication for news should disqualify it as a source for attributed opinion. I also note that many of the contributors to the previous discussion [3] on the publication seem to be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is a hate group, whereas in fact, it is a registered charity. I have no opinion on whether Lesbian and Gay News is reliable as a newspaper, since I don’t read it, but I think that the addition to this article was useful, and I support its reinstatement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Eievie: @
Sideswipe9th: I see that there is a discussion going on on Eievie’s Talk page which is relevant to the discussion here. It includes references to
WP:SECONDARY:' "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
Because LGN is not a WP:RS it's inappropriate to use it in an article.'
But, since the opinion was attributed to Mr Kavanagh, our article would not be making a "claim" about the judgment, but merely reporting that this is Mr Kavanagh’s professional opinion of the judgment.
The comment by Mr Kavanagh is not a statement of fact in the usual sense, and neither is it an editorial opinion in the usual sense. It is a professional opinion about a legal judgment. As such, it should be attributed, but I see no reason why it should not be added to this article, since its reliability is not affected by whether the publication is reliable as a news source. Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. As we've both referred to, per the discussion on the WP:RS noticeboard LGN is not a WP:RS. WP:SECONDARY makes it clear that Wikipedia policy is that articles should rely on reliable secondary sources, and that an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim can only be added if that claim is published by a reliable source. To use the quote from Dennis would be WP:UNDUE due to the unreliability of that site as a source. As I said on talk page, if the same opinion had been posted in a reliable source, it could be worthy of consideration. The quality of Denis' statement is immaterial at this point, as the issue right now is over the source in which it is published. That said, I do have opinions that run counter to yours about his commentary, as I do not believe his comments to be an accurate representation of the judgement. I would elaborate, but I'd be skirting WP:NOR if I did so because as you say, there are not many if any reliable sources who have done an analysis on the judgement.
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. From WP:DUE
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. From WP:RS
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors. The emphasis in those quotes is mine.
I suppose this is now res judicata, with no possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court? Kaihsu ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Nothing here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal.html Kaihsu ( talk) 19:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
did not "raise an arguable point of law". 39 Essex Chambers has a bit more, saying that Bell's legal team wanted to challenge the Court of Appeal ruling due to misinterpretations/misapplications of Gillick, but is still very brief overall.
Now it’s here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-april-may-2022.html – Kaihsu ( talk) 17:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
While we have a reactions section to the original ruling, we do not yet have one for the appeal judgement. Following on from the discussion above about the opinion published in LGN, I'd like to propose adding the following reactions:
"We are delighted by today’s judgment. It will not only offer reassurance for trans young people and their parents, but everyone who values young people’s right to make decisions about their own healthcare in line with their evolving maturity and understanding."[1]
"We are pleased the court agreed that the rules governing consent must be applied the same way to transgender and gender diverse adolescents as they are to other adolescents who are making decisions about medical care"[2]
"The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinicians."[3]
"The medical landscape for young trans people in the UK has been bleak since Bell 1, which had a real and lasting chilling effect on referrals for puberty blockers. With the appeal in hand, it is hoped that NHS England will now turn its attention once again to the guidelines for referrals and update them in line with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. However, for children who have had to wait and experience distress and dysphoria for nine months, it is little consolation."[4]
The response by Brook is relatively short, and contextually this paragraph seemed like the best one to chose. I feel the same for the quotation from the Endocrine Society. For Marina Wheeler, I feel like this quotation sums up the effects of both the original ruling, and the appeal pretty succinctly. For Sandra Duffy's response, there may be better quotations in the article, I'm not sure. If you think you've spotted one feel free to suggest it. I haven't done an exhaustive search yet for other opinions or responses, but I hope this should get the ball rolling.
Source reliability wise, politics.co.uk is as far as I can tell generally seen as reliable, with some queries about dates of birth for politicians. NewsWise has been mentioned once in the WP:RSN archives, where it was pointed out that while it was online only and in blog format, it had both editorial standards and paid editors. Neither Irish Legal News nor UK Human Rights Blog have been mentioned in WP:RSN. Both sources have been used for citations in other articles however, and both opinion pieces are written by named legal professionals; a legal academic and lecturer at a UK university, and a QC who practices in public and human rights law. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
(a) From Helen Marshall, Chief Executive at Brook, one of the interveners in the case: "We are delighted by today’s judgment. It will not only offer reassurance for trans young people and their parents, but everyone who values young people’s right to make decisions about their own healthcare in line with their evolving maturity and understanding."
(b) By confirming that clinicians are able to use their professional judgment to evaluate an individual young person’s capacity to consent to the use of puberty blockers, today’s judgment crucially upholds the principle of Gillick competence which underpins practice across health, social care and many other areas of work with young people.
because it is more closely related to the actual decision. Also, if we are going to quote Brook, then we need to say that they were involved in the case, against Ms Bell.
(a) "We are pleased the court agreed that the rules governing consent must be applied the same way to transgender and gender diverse adolescents as they are to other adolescents who are making decisions about medical care.
(b) The ruling preserves access to medical treatment for transgender and gender diverse teenagers and protects the ability of physicians, not the courts, to determine the capacity of a person under 16 to consent to medical treatment.
which is a more accurate summary of the case, but is not actually a ‘reaction to the appeal’.
(a) The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinicians."
(b) [In Bell v Tavistock] ‘….the Court of Appeal advised judges to avoid formulating policy in an area of social and moral complexity.’
(c)“Judicial review,” it [the Court of Appeal] said “is not the forum to resolve contested issues of fact, causation and clinical judgment” and the [High] Court was wrong to decide between the evidence of competing experts without it being properly admitted or tested in cross-examination.
(d) In essence, the Court of Appeal found that the judges below [in the High Court] had stepped into the shoes of clinicians: it is “for doctors to decide on competence not judges”.
(e) …… Ms Bell is unlikely to be the only young person who has changed their mind about treatment. If this is right, a clinical negligence claim is just a matter of time. Unlike proceedings for judicial review, that will provide a forum where the court is required to make factual findings, form judgments about clinical practice, and resolve disputes between experts. On that occasion, the judges will have to decide.
(a) "The medical landscape for young trans people in the UK has been bleak since Bell 1, which had a real and lasting chilling effect on referrals for puberty blockers. With the appeal in hand, it is hoped that NHS England will now turn its attention once again to the guidelines for referrals and update them in line with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. However, for children who have had to wait and experience distress and dysphoria for nine months, it is little consolation."
This is a comment by a legal academic, but it reads like a comment from someone on one side of the controversy. It also includes the
weasel wording ‘it is hoped’ so we can’t even say that it is Dr Duffy who hopes etc. So I am against including this.
(b) Through the declaration and guidance issued in the [High Court] judgment, it set a near-impossibly high standard for competence to consent, including a requirement to understand the effects of cross-sex hormones – a treatment which is only prescribed to adults.
(c) The Court of Appeal disagreed profoundly with the findings of the Divisional [High] Court on both evidentiary and legal bases. Its decision to overturn found that the Divisional Court had relied on flawed expert evidence (Bell 2, 38), “implied factual findings that the Divisional Court was not equipped to make” (65), and was incorrect in issuing both its declaration of law and its guidance on the application (84 and 89).
(d) Of particular importance is the Court of Appeal’s finding that Gillick competence applies to puberty blockers in the same way that it would to any other medical decision.
... it was really pleasing [the CoA] was able to cut through the noise and make its judgment on the essential legal issues – reaffirming that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment, and confirming that it was wrong for the Divisional Court to make a declaration in the absence of any finding of unlawfulness.
Our strategy had to be to focus the courts on the specific legal issues raised and away from the moral controversy around the treatment of children for gender dysphoria.
Ok. Breaking this down into quotes by person.
"[stepping] into the shoes of clinicians". Can we work both into a reaction attributed to her?
likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.I think WEASEL only applies to wikivoice? As long as we make it clear that
it is hopedis Sandra's words, that should satisfy WEASEL. I do like alternative quotes C and D.
We were disappointed with the Divisional Court’s judgment. Despite making no finding of unlawfulness, the court still made a declaration of what, precisely, a child had to be able to weigh up before consenting to treatment with puberty blockersis a reaction to the original judgement and sets the stage for the appeal. I don't think it would be WP:SYNTH to include this quote there?
If we need to trim it for balance reasons, I'd be most in favour of the quotes from Brook, Wheeler, and Robertson. Two are directly connected to the appeal (Brook and Robertson) and one is an independent QC (Wheeler). But if we could work in all the ones we find acceptable, I don't think we need to worry so much about length. In the context of youth transgender healthcare in the UK, the original case and its appeal rulings are pretty significant, so having a reasonably detailed and cited appeal reactions section is warranted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh and that Law Society Gazette response is a great find! Especially if we can use it for both sections. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinician.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and said that the original claim for judicial review failed. They said that in the original judgment, the High Court had decided that Tavistock’s policy was not unlawful. Having decided this, the High Court did not have the power to issue any declaration, or issue guidance as to how doctors should approach the question of young people giving consent to treatment with puberty blockers. In some instances, a court could give advice in the form of a declaration, but this was only allowed where the court had decided that a party had acted unlawfully. The High Court had also gone against the general principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions on treatment if the doctor treating them considered that they were competent to do so ( Gillick competence).
reaffirming that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment, and confirming that it was wrong for the Divisional Court to make a declaration in the absence of any finding of unlawfulness.is a brief summary which would be more understandable by the general public than the Wheeler quote (a), which is aimed at lawyers.
‘….the Court of Appeal advised judges to avoid formulating policy in an area of social and moral complexity.Since this refers to the Court of Appeal, I don’t see how we could use it in the Reactions section for the original judgment. How are you thinking of framing it?
Don't worry about the delay. I've been wiped myself the last few days. I'd rather we take time to get it right, than rush and get it wrong.
The Bell 1 decision modified Gillick competence, but only with respect to the issuance of puberty-blocking medications and only where they are required by trans children. Through the declaration and guidance issued in the judgment, it set a near-impossibly high standard for competence to consent, including a requirement to understand the effects of cross-sex hormones – a treatment which is only prescribed to adults.. In the context of that paragraph, Duffy is talking about Bell 1, which was the High Court not the Court of Appeal. The inline clarifier
"[High Court]"provides that clarity without needing to include the full quote.
As figures before the Court show, treatment for gender dysphoria among children is increasing: in 2009 there were 97 referrals to the Tavistock clinic; in 2019 there were 2,519. Given these figures, Ms Bell is unlikely...(cont)The comment on Bell being not being the only detransitioner with regret needs some context as to why Wheeler is saying that, as even if the absolute rate of regretful detransition remains low, because of the increase in number of referrals there will be a corresponding increase in regretful detransitioners. If that makes sense? Though we may also want to add an inline Wikilink to Detransition in that sentence for related reading.
Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Queen's Counsel Marina Wheeler, reacting to the appeal ...? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
As a UK native, colloquially we use QC when referring to senior barristers more often than the fuller Queen's Counsel. Seeing it written as
Queen's Counsel
Marina Wheeler, reacting to the appeal ...
feels unnatural to me at least when writing in a British English perspective. I'd prefer to keep it as a postnomial, if we're keeping it. Are there any other UK law cases that have reaction sections on Wiki that we could use to establish precedent?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 03:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)