Courts are struggling to find experts willing to give medical evidence in youth family law disputes [autodeclarados trans] who want hormonal treatment. But trolling and toxic debate over giving puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors discourage specialists from appearing in court.
Judges in two High Court cases this month in disputes over whether puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones should be given to a person under 18 pointed to a lack of medical experts in the UK willing to give evidence.
In one, Judge Judd raised a provisional order that had been in force since last October that prevented a parent from making arrangements for Q, then 15 years old, to access treatment for gender dysphoria at a private clinic. The mother had agreed that Q should join the waiting list for treatment in the public health system, but she did not agree to him accessing it privately. Waiting lists meant Q would not be assessed or treated by the NHS until after turning 18.
The father of the minor, who is now 16 years old, a woman who self-identifies as a man, agreed to commit not to finance or facilitate the referral to an extraterritorial organization such as the private clinic. Gender GP as long as Q remained under 18 years of age. The judge said it had “proved impossible to find a consultant endocrinologist in this country willing to give expert evidence.”
In the first ruling on transgender medical issues to take into consideration the Cass report (revealing that there was no “quality evidence” to support the administration of a hormonal treatment that could alter the lives of young people) the judge blamed “the toxicity of the debate” for the fact that it had not been possible to obtain medical evidence.
“While there is a shortage of experts in some disciplines… I have never encountered a case where there was simply no one willing to provide such evidence to the court,” the judge said.
Citing the Cass review, the judge said: “There are few other areas of health care where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media and where insults reflect the worst behavior.” of intimidation.
One week before, Sir Andrew McFarlanethe family court’s senior judge, said in a ruling that there was “very significant concern” that minors were “accessing cross-hormone treatment from any private clinic abroad, online and offline.” unregulated way.”
She had heard evidence from an Australian-based pediatric endocrinologist that the dose of hormones prescribed to a teenager by the GenderGP clinic, after a single online consultation with a counsellor, was “dangerously high” and “downright negligent”.
Despite an “extensive” search, McFarlane said it had been impossible to identify a single endocrinologist in the UK who was willing to give evidence.
In a 2018 speech, McFarlane highlighted the “serious problem” of finding medical experts for family court cases, which he said was due in part to strict court calendars and was exacerbated by fee cuts. of legal assistance.
McFarlane created a working group to look into the problem. His report, published in 2020, confirmed difficulties across the country and a “dwindling” pool of specialty experts, including child and family psychiatrists and psychologists, pediatricians, radiologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, hematologists, neonatologists and geneticists.
In addition to the low fees, court schedules, processes and volume of material, and lack of support and training, he concluded that Criticism from lawyers, judges and the press contributed to the unwillingness to appear.
Half of the 635 respondents to the 2022 Bond Solon expert witness study said they would refuse to act on “highly contentious” matters, such as those involving transgender issues.
Mark Solon, lawyer and founder of the expert training company, says: “As society changes, so does the need for experts to assist courts with an independent opinion on issues in often highly contentious disputes. , and where new attitudes and evidence need examination. Gender is one of those issues.”
Solon says it can be difficult to find an expert with the relevant qualifications, experience, knowledge and skills to produce a report that meets the court’s requirements and can handle potentially hostile cross-examination. He predicts that turning to foreign experts to fill the gap may become more common.
In addition to the criticism that the limited number of trans specialists may receive if they comment on this “highly controversial” issue, Simon Berney-Edwards, executive director of the Expert Witness Institute, says they also are likely to be subject to harassing complaints and harassment.
Paul Conrathe, the Sinclairslaw lawyer who represented Q’s mother, says he has spoken to many potential expert witnesses, who express “concerns about being personally vilified and that the suffering is not worth it.” In particular, he maintains that there is a “hostile and intimidating environment for anyone who attempts to challenge an affirmative approach to hormone treatment.”
Conrathe argues that anonymity can encourage more experts to participate in the judicial process, something that judges already have the power to grant if circumstances allow.
James Roberts KC, president of the Family Law Bar, says the difficulty in identifying experts in trans cases is due to the complex issues in dispute, but accepts the wider problems of finding experts at legal aid rates.
The Children’s Lawyers Association adds that it is “likely” that the Cass review and the wider public debate on the treatment of children with gender dysphoria will act as a further disincentive. While others suggest that the pilot program to allow journalists to report on family court proceedings, which began in January, may exacerbate the problem.
Original article
