Talk:Bell v Tavistock

References

@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)

Possible appeal?

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)

Reaction section lacks balance

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)

@Maneesh: I think there should be a ‘Reactions’ section, because I expect that most people who come to this article would be interested in the practical consequences of the judgment, rather than the legal arguments. You say that there are many reactions to this judgment. Are there some other reactions which you think are not covered in this article, and ought to be included? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the trouble is then you get competing narratives in the reaction section without a WP:NPOV. A complete list of reactions is not sensible in this (or just about any) context. For 'positive' reactions to the ruling: "Paul Conrathe, the solicitor for both claimants, said the ruling was "an historic judgment that protects children who suffer from gender dysphoria", "Why I was right to blow the whistle on the Tavistock Clinic over puberty blockers", "...the High Court's verdict isn't a victory for transphobia, but one for common sense." etc.

Thank you for the sources.

The current section has reactions from the claimant (Bell), from Mermaids (a relevant charity), and Amnesty and Liberty (jointly). My view is that these are all relevant and should stay in the article.

Your first source, the BBC article, is actually the source for the reaction by the claimant. I don’t think it is worthy of note that her solicitor had a ‘positive’ reaction to the ruling, and if this is added it would, in effect, just be duplicating Bell’s response.

I don’t have access to the second source, the Spectator. (It fades out after the first paragraph.) What are you proposing to add to the article?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The quote from the spectator article is there in my link above. There are other organizations as well, the Bayeswater Support group is cited in this article as having 'welcomed' the ruling. There is no end to the number of reactions on a prominent ruling like this. My suggestion is to keep it very brief to keep the article neutral. Maneesh (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the only reactions to the judgment which should be in the article are those which are significant for some reason. I think that the reaction from Liberty and Amnesty is significant, because these are well known and active organisations. I don’t think that the views of a journalist writing an opinion piece in the Spectator are particularly noteworthy, and so I don’t think that this should be included – particularly if the Reactions section is to be kept brief. I would support adding a comment about the reaction of the Bayswater Support group, from the source you have provided: 'The Bayswater Support Group, which describes itself as supporting the parents of children with adolescent-onset gender dysphoria, welcomed the ruling'. Do you agree?

As regards being neutral – this does not necessarily mean that equal space should be given to reactions for and against. If, for instance, the reactions were overwhelmingly negative, then most of the reactions mentioned in the article should be negative ones. You seem to be concerned that the article is not neutral. What exactly concerns you? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hayton has written many articles on this topic and is a notable opinion here. It is not clear that the reactions are not overwhelmingly negative, it looks like that because "reactions" are not sampled uniformly. You are now weighing organizations, I can show you many others that supported the judgement. This all starts to get a little silly, the entry should report the facts of the case and limit 'reaction' commentary (unless those reactions really did lead to other facts). I'll leave it at that. Maneesh (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well one more thing looking at other wikipedia entries for prominent court cases, I don't see 'reaction' sections and the articles really do seem to adhere to sticking to the facts of the case.Maneesh (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say that the reactions were overwhelming negative – I was suggesting that as a hypothetical situation. I’m sorry, but I’m not clear what alterations to the article you are proposing. Do you, for instance, want to add something about the reaction from the Bayswater Support Group, as I suggested in my previous post? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me make my position clear: encyclopedic articles on court cases should not have a 'reactions' section'; many famous cases that I've checked on WP do not have such a section and that makes sense. Trying to find all reactions to a prominent case is not a terribly good idea since there are so many reactions and they are not sampled uniformly in media which biases the interpretation of the facts of the case. If a reaction led to some sort of closely linked notable outcome, it would make sense but that's not the case here. You won't be able to represent reactions with a WP:NPOV. Maneesh (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you are saying that the Reactions section ought to be deleted. I am in favour of keeping it, because I think that it is the reactions to the case which make it notable. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Court of Appeal

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)

I have found this [2] which says:’The judges did not specify when the judgment is to be handed down but stated that it will be ‘some time’ before it is published.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's nearly two months on and we're still waiting. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'm keeping an eye out for reports of the appeal decision - presumably you are, as well. I haven't seen anything yet. I don't know of any procedure for members of the public to chase up the Court of Appeal. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

According to the Court of Appeal daily cause list, the judgement will be handed down tomorrow, 17 September 2021, at 2pm. Not sure how to cite this in the article though, as that page gets updated regularly and no news sources have picked up on it yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should be updated to reflect the appeals ruling. Kaihsu (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you think is needed. The infobox already refers to the appeal judgment. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:32, 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)

Thanks for your reply. However, I am still unclear about what changes should be made - I have little experience of using infoboxes in legal cases. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be dense, but I still don't understand what is to be done. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the amendments. I will bear this in mind in the future. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the infobox. Likewise the leading paragraphs should be reworked. Kaihsu (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do this later. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all your assistance. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion of Dennis Kavanagh in Lesbian and Gay News

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)

And why would a legal opinion published in a non-RS be DUE for inclusion in this article, if it has not been covered by better sources? Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Because it’s a good comment. I would prefer some legal comment from more established publications, but I haven’t been able to find any. Do you know of anything useful? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:04, 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)

Thanks for the ping @Sweet6970:. Like Newimpartial I would refer you back to WP:DUE for this. 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.

If you wish to challenge the that LGN is an unreliable source, you'd be best opening a discussion on the current WP:RS noticeboard, per the advice given in the header of the noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As I’ve said, I have no opinion on whether LGN is reliable as a news source, so I have no intention of opening any discussion about LGN as a source. I agree that it is not a good idea for us drift off the point into debate about the quality of Mr Kavanagh’s legal analysis. But you have not answered my point that reporting DK’s legal opinion, attributed, is not the same as using LGN as a source for a “claim”. Please explain your reasoning.

As regards DUE: DK’s view is not a minority view. So far, it is the only view, and I think it would be a pity not to include it.

Sweet6970 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe I have. Again I defer back to WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:DUE. From WP:SECONDARY 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.

The discussion at the WP:RS noticeboard is clear that LGN is an unreliable source. As such, we cannot use it for any analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims published by authors in that source. To do so would be WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate weight to an unreliable source. The issue isn't the reporting quality of Denis' legal opinion, it is that his opinion was published in an unreliable source. In order to attribute the quotation from Denis, you would need to cite the LGN article, and LGN is an unreliable source. If Denis' opinion was published in a WP:RS then an argument could be made for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) An attributed opinion is not a ‘claim’. (2) There are no ‘competing views’, because the only view we have is DK’s. I appreciate that this is a problem , as is the fact that the comment comes from an source which has been judged to be unreliable. I had not thought that DK’s analysis of the judgment was in any way controversial, but since you apparently disagree with it, I must accept that it is. (3) This article is not ‘based’ on any factual reports in LGN; the proposal is to add one comment.

I accept that (2) may be enough to rule out adding the comment, and I see that there is no consensus to add it. So at present I am no longer suggesting that the comment be added. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

An attributed opinion is a claim, although that is an argument in semantics. Denis' interpretation of the judgement is questionable as I have seen WP:PRIMARY sources within the legal field discussing the problems with it on social media, and the quotation that Eievie added is debatable. WP:DUE is not just the balancing act of ensuring all significant viewpoints are raised, but also ensuring that fringe viewpoints are not.

If there are reliable sources though, that section could use more info. Or perhaps a "Reactions to the Appeal" section could also be added, similar to the reactions section towards the original judgement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add a ‘Reactions to the Appeal’ section. But since DK’s comment has been rejected, we don’t have anything to put in it! I searched the internet again today, and it was only the rejected LGN article which came up as a serious candidate for inclusion. Do you know of anything suitable?

Also, it has been reported that Ms Bell has said that she wishes to appeal, but I have not seen any reports saying whether an appeal has/will be lodged. Do you have any (reliable) inf on this? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything for the reactions to the appeal at this time, but I did find this article in The Guardian which says Bell planned on appealing to the Supreme Court. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The Guardian report was, in fact, what I was referring to. But I do not think it is worthwhile mentioning the possibility of an appeal unless/until it is definite that an appeal will go ahead. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Res judicata?

I suppose this is now res judicata, with no possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court? Kaihsu (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye out for anything to do with this case, and I have not seen anything about an appeal being launched. If there has been no action on an appeal by now, it would be too late. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The last updates I'm aware of are on Bell's CrowdJustice page dated October 4th 2021, and this tweet by Bell dated December 14th. If the appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied, she has kept quiet about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal.html Kaihsu (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like that page only lists cases that have been granted or refused an appeal, and not those which are pending that decision. So either Bell has made a request for an appeal which is undecided, or she decided not to appeal and hasn't made any statements about that decision. Either way there's not much we can do here at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 and Kaihsu: So turns out, Bell had made a request for an appeal! That request was turned down a couple of hours ago, and as such there's only a couple of sources reporting on it so far. Irish Legal News, 39 Essex Chambers, and The Oldham Times are the only reliable ones I can find at this time.

Not that there's much detail though. Both Irish Legal News and The Oldham Times mention that the Supreme Court rejected it as Bell's challenge 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.

Hopefully we get some more sources or statements over the coming days. Though on the whole, this does look like the end of the case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; it should then show in the Supreme Court website linked above in a couple of months. Kaihsu (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Now it’s here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-april-may-2022.html – Kaihsu (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Reactions to the appeal judgement.

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:

• 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."
• From Dr Sabine Hannema, on behalf of The Endocrine Society: "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"
• From Marina Wheeler QC: "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."
• From Sandra Duffy, Irish legal academic and a lecturer in law at the University of Bristol: "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."

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

Thank you for these sources. I will have a look at them and get back to you – but not today. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(i) Re your suggested quote by Brook/Helen Marshall

(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."

This more or less says: ‘we’re glad we won’ which is not informative for our readers.

I think that this extract would be better:

(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.

(ii) Re your suggested quote from Dr Sabine Hannema, on behalf of The Endocrine Society:

(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.

I would not accept this as an appropriate addition to the article. It’s not what the judgment says, Dr Hannema is an endocrinologist (rather than a lawyer), and the view is from a party which was involved in the case.

Further up in the article there is this:

(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’.

So I thank you for providing this source, but I would not support adding anything from it.

(iii) Re your suggested quote from the article by Marina Wheeler QC:

(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."

This says the same as the Dennis Kavanagh quote I wanted to use, but in a way which, I think, is less comprehensible to the general public. I support adding this, although I feel it will be of limited use to most of our readers.

Other useful extracts:

(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.

(iv) Re your suggested quote from Sandra Duffy:

(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.

But there are some other comments which are useful in explaining the basis of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and might be added:

(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.

I await comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Are you still interested in this?

There has now been an article in the Law Society Gazette of 11th October – a ‘Lawyer in the news’ interview with Alistair Robertson, solicitor for Tavistock. [4] I would select the following extracts:

(a) ... 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.

and

(b) 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.

There are now quite a lot of possible quotes for a ‘Reactions to appeal’ section – possibly too many. I would be grateful for comments from anyone on which are the most pertinent and useful for readers.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies @Sweet6970:, I didn't get the notification for your reply on 3 October, I'll take a look at this and get back to you soon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t ping you on 3 October – I assumed that this article was on your watchlist. So that makes it my fault. But anyway, due to circumstances I would not have been able to deal with this until the last few days, so no harm done. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is on my watch list! I think it must have gotten lost in a bunch of other updates for that day! Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Breaking this down into quotes by person.

Brook/Helen Marshall Yeah I like that quote you've suggested, and saying what Brook's role was in the appeal is a no brainer.

Dr Hannema That's fair. Per WP:ONUS we don't need to include every reaction, but for balance we do need to include some.

Marina Wheeler I wonder if you could expand on where you think it's less comprehensible? If it's the terminology used, can we address that with inline wikilinks, eg Gillick competence? Pending that, I'd like to put in her analysis as quoted, but I also like the explainer in point D about the high court "[stepping] into the shoes of clinicians". Can we work both into a reaction attributed to her?

Sandra Duffy I'm not sure if MOS:WEASEL applies to quotes from a source; 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 hoped is Sandra's words, that should satisfy WEASEL. I do like alternative quotes C and D.

Law Society Gazette/Alistair Robertson Could we use this source in two places? 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 blockers is 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?

Also Law Society Gazette/Alistair Robertson I think quote A fits a reaction to the appeal better than B. B is more how they approached the appeal for court room strategy, than a reaction on the judgement itself. It's a useful quote, but not in this context.

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)

Reply to Sideswipe9th’s comments of 19 October 2021:

Brook/Helen Marshall – agree use quote (b)

Dr Sabine Hannema – agree don’t use

Marina Wheeler

quote (a) – discussed below*

agree to use quote (d)

I think quote (e) is of great interest – do you have any objection to using it?

Sandra Duffy

quote (a) The problem I see with this is the expression ‘It is hoped…’ This doesn’t mean anything because Ms Duffy is not saying who hopes it. If she had said that she hoped it, we could use it, because we could attribute it to her, but since she has been so indefinite, we don’t know who she is referring to. I am opposed to adding something so vague as to be meaningless.

quote (b) – do you have any comments on this?

quotes (c) & (d) – agree to use

Law Society Gazette/Robertson

your first quote – I think it is OK to use this as a reaction to the original judgment, though I think it is best to continue to the end of the sentence.

agree to use quote (a)

how about using quote (b) in the original ‘Reactions’ section?

• Marina Wheeler – quote (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 clinician.

This is riddled with legal jargon. I would translate it roughly (also adding inf from elsewhere) as:

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).

BUT this is, in effect, my interpretation of the main point of the judgment (the other significant point being that expert evidence was not handled properly). We should be using reliable sources, not our own interpretations. Particularly in view of the contentious nature of the subject matter, I think we need to stick to verbatim quotes. To me, the Robertson quote (a) – 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.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. Specifics below.

Marina Wheeler quote (e): when used in combination with quote (d) I'd have WP:SYNTH concerns. The context for (e) is surrounding referral rates and transition regret leading to negligence claims, whereas for (d) it is about the mistake the lower court made. We might be able to address that by stating the context for (e) or by extending (e) to include that context however.

Marina Wheeler quote (a): I agree that we can't interpret or paraphrase that quote, especially to that degree as we should stick to what the source says. I still like the quote as it lists the technicalities of the case, even if it is somewhat jargonistic. In light of Sandra Duffy quote (c) though, I think both quotes provide the same info just phrased in different ways. If we're including Duffy (c) and Robertson (a) then I'm happy to leave Wheeler (a) off.

Sandra Duffy quote (a): though I see the point your making, I disagree. That said, give that we can agree on the other quotes from her I'm happy to leave this one.

Sandra Duffy quote (b): it's a good quote, though it's describing the original judgement and framing the appeal. Is a section on the outcome of the appeal the right place to use it? It might be better in the reactions to the original judgement per Alistair Robertson's quote.

Alistair Robertson quote on original ruling: no objection to continuing to the end of the sentence.

Alistair Robertson quote (b): in conjunction with the other extended quote as a reaction to the original ruling, no objections. They do feed into each other, one describing the problems with the original judgement and the other describing the appeal strategy.

Once we work these all in, it should give a good expansion to both sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Sorry for the delay in replying (circumstances).

Sandra Duffy quote (b) [In Bell v Tavistock] ‘….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?

Marina Wheeler quotes (d) and (e). I was not intending to suggest that there was a connection between these 2 quotes. You have said there should be some context for quote (e). What do you suggest?

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Sandra Duffy: I think you might be confusing quote Duffy (b) with Wheeler (b). The full paragraph for which Duffy (b) is a segment of reads: 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.

Marina Wheeler (e) context: it would just be to extend the quote to include the previous sentence. 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)

Yes, you’re right – I confused the 2 quotes (b). Thank you for the correction.

Sandra Duffy I agree with you that the Sandra Duffy quote (b) can be used in the Reactions section for the original judgment.

Marina Wheeler – yes I agree with your suggestion on adding context.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: How are things? Do we now have agreement on what is to go into a ‘Reactions to the appeal’ section? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Things are good! And yup, I think we've got consensus! Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Do you want to draft the ‘Reactions to appeal’ section? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I can do. It'll be over the weekend though. Fair amount of other work to do today. I'm happy for you to take the ball though if you want it done sooner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

No hurry – I’m delighted to let you do the work! Sweet6970 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've added the quotes as we've discussed above to the "Reactions to the High Court judgement", as well as creating the "Reactions to the appeal" section. The only paragraph I'm unhappy within in the article, in terms of flow is the one from Wheeler on the appeal. I couldn't think of a better way to link the two quotations together. Could maybe also shorten the inline link to detransition, but I might be overthinking that. But if there's any changes you think made that'll help any of the additions, go for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: ‘QC’ should stay – the views of a QC carry more weight than those of other lawyers.

@Sideswipe9th: Many thanks for all your work on this. I can’t come up with any improvements. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: cheers. Glad we could get this all in.

@Firefangledfeathers: I have no strong feelings about having or not having the QC postnomial for Wheeler. Maybe a coat rack issue, and Wheeler is notable enough in her own right to have her own article which also lists the postnomial. I tried to search for other rulings with reaction sections for precedent, but couldn't easily find any last night. I added it at the time as it seemed relevant, less sure now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How about Queen's Counsel Marina Wheeler, reacting to the appeal ...? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have strong feelings about this, but I would prefer it if it was ‘Marina Wheeler QC’ because (1) I think that the term ‘QC’ is better known to the general public than ‘Queen’s Counsel’ and (2) referring to her as ‘Queen’s Counsel’ might imply to the general public that she was representing the queen, particularly since this a judicial review case. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:57, 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)

Fair enough! I'd prefer to see the MOS followed here, but it sound like people who know more than I do about the situation feel that an exception is called for. For the record, the QC postnom only shows up on three pages, including this one (search results). The other two are guideline-adherant uses, with the postnom only appearing in the lead of the subject's bio article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That surprises me, as I know we have Wiki articles on other QCs, both historic and present. Is there a different formatting perhaps to the tag using GBR or GB as the country code instead of UK? The only thing that's unclear to me in MOS:POSTNOM is scope. It's written from the perspective of the post-nominal holder being the article subject where it apples to the lead sentence, and not the holder being secondarily named in another article. I have now remembered one suitably recent and large case, the 2019 British prorogation controversy, where multiple QCs appear in the body text with the post-nominal in the first instance, but not any subsequent use of their name or surname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct! With country=GBR, the postnom appears in the body in two other articles, 2019 British prorogation controversy and Parliamentary motion to impeach Tony Blair, and the bio lead of Suella Braverman. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I suspect then that either a lot of the articles use QC may not have the country field on it, as there are certainly around 300 articles in which sticking strictly to entries on UK barristers should have it, or there are articles in that category without the post-nominal on them. Something to correct perhaps, but a discussion for another place or places.

On the topic of here, I don't mind either way. We have at least two other articles where this post-nominal is used outside of the lead, but we have MOS:POSTNOM which says to limit use to a subject's article lead. I see no strong reason to keep it, but also no strong reason to remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)