Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tavistock-gender-clinic-lawyers-latest-b2143006.html Do you think closing down the clinic and now the subsequent lawsuits are politically motivated to try and give the Trans community bad press or was it closed for completely valid and unjustifiable reasons?" *valid and justifiable reasons | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This also ignores that regret rates for gender affirming care tend to be MUCH smaller than the general regret rate for other care." I keep reading this. Do you have any figures to back it up? Other than that, I agree with most of what you said. We really need to come up with some new laws to prevent ambulance chasers from wasting the time and money of of public institutions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This also ignores that regret rates for gender affirming care tend to be MUCH smaller than the general regret rate for other care. I keep reading this. Do you have any figures to back it up? Other than that, I agree with most of what you said. We really need to come up with some new laws to prevent ambulance chasers from wasting the time and money of of public institutions." I put numbers in my post, if you mean citations, I don't have links that are allowed on the forums. (at least not the sites listed in the rules and who knows if ones not on there will be allowed) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, it is being closed because it is not providing good care to enough patients" What does this mean? It looks like a play on words, and that makes me suspicious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, it is being closed because it is not providing good care to enough patients What does this mean? It looks like a play on words, and that makes me suspicious" I think she meant "Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, but because it cannot provide enough care". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I put numbers in my post, if you mean citations, I don't have links that are allowed on the forums. (at least not the sites listed in the rules and who knows if ones not on there will be allowed)" I did mean citations. Could you give me some titles/headlines to search for? I'm happy for you to PM me with links. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, it is being closed because it is not providing good care to enough patients What does this mean? It looks like a play on words, and that makes me suspicious I think she meant "Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, but because it cannot provide enough care"." I have just read why the centre was closed, and it was bad care, as found by an independent review. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I put numbers in my post, if you mean citations, I don't have links that are allowed on the forums. (at least not the sites listed in the rules and who knows if ones not on there will be allowed) I did mean citations. Could you give me some titles/headlines to search for? I'm happy for you to PM me with links." I wish I had good links/search terms and given enough time and energy I could probably find some, I just don't have the spoons to do so right now with my chronic fatigue. I read most of it from a variety of places which I cannot link, from people that have developed a reliable reputation to me. Which won't mean much to you so here is what I can say. Well first off reading the times article which should be easy enough to find will show you that they don't have any families yet and "Lawyers expect about 1000 families to join". Nowhere does it state anyone actually having joined already. It will also show you that in total Tavistock has treated 19,000 people TOTAL which with "gender affirming care regret rate" (that's your google search term) being between 1-3.4% is 646 people likely to regret care. That is assuming that EVERY single one had puberty blockers which is highly unlikely (links I cannot post say less than 1,000), but as I cannot find a search term to bring up the data we shall pretend it is all 19,000 had blockers In order to join the class action those 646 would have to have: • had blockers • blockers were the wrong treatment • want to sue • want to join a dodgy looking claim in sufficient numbers to justify the funding All unlikely Especially given the ambulance chaser nature of the lawyers (google Pogust Goodhead and read their reviews) Now for some stuff which is what I consider true but for the purposes of the conversation is just opinion. The Times is deliberatly misrepresenting what is happening. Equating a firms desire to do something they cannot actually do with something that is actually being done. Sky news headline is a little more accurate with "NHS gender clinic, the Tavistock Centre, could face legal action over alleged 'failings in care'" What is happening in my opinion is a bunch of ambulance chasers saw the hooha in the national press about tavistock (which was mostly inaccurate) and smelt money, they then made a big bold claim and made it to the papers and the papers bit and provided them with free advertising. I would put money on this class action never happening. While the Tavistock wasn't perfect (very little in the NHS right now is) it did the absolute best job it could with its dire lack of funding and HUGE waiting lines. I am a Trans Woman and I would like to think people would believe me when I say I want the best care for trans people youth and adult as possible. I like most the Trans community are welcoming the plans of the closure of Tavistock, because those plans mean the good work tavistock was doing will now be done from 8 new regional centres and process far greater numbers of those needing care. The area of concern for our community is that the powers be will go back on what they have said and not actually open all 8 centres. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. " From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. " You do realise other than some admin issues you just said what I said right? You just classified it differently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. You do realise other than some admin issues you just said what I said right? You just classified it differently." It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you "Read the actual report, not a second hand account of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you
Read the actual report, not a second hand account of it."I have read the highlighted parts of the report, not the whole report, do they change their minds in the report then? I'm not going to argue with you over this, it is not worth my time, it has happened already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you
Read the actual report, not a second hand account of it.
I have read the highlighted parts of the report, not the whole report, do they change their minds in the report then?
I'm not going to argue with you over this, it is not worth my time, it has happened already. "If you read the report you will see that your assertions before are over simplistic and not all the "fault" falls at Tavistocks door. The care they provided for people that actually got to being seen while not perfect was good, there have been no claims in the report otherwise. Which explains why the regret rate for gender affirming care is so low. (1-3.4% according to studies, as opposed to a universal regret rate of about 14-20% NHS wide) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, it is being closed because it is not providing good care to enough patients What does this mean? It looks like a play on words, and that makes me suspicious I think she meant "Tavistock is being closed not because it is giving bad care, but because it cannot provide enough care". I have just read why the centre was closed, and it was bad care, as found by an independent review." The one centre in London is being replaced by 2 centres… and other regional centres across the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. You do realise other than some admin issues you just said what I said right? You just classified it differently. It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you "It would certainly appear from the interim report that the level of service and care was not “good” otherwise it would not have been necessary to write, “ Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services.?“ The report is of course affirming many of the findings of the cqc inspection which found the overall rating for the service to be inadequate. An inadequate service providing sub standard clinical care, assessment and treatment is not one which is providing “good care”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. You do realise other than some admin issues you just said what I said right? You just classified it differently. It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you
It would certainly appear from the interim report that the level of service and care was not “good” otherwise it would not have been necessary to write, “ Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services.?“
The report is of course affirming many of the findings of the cqc inspection which found the overall rating for the service to be inadequate.
An inadequate service providing sub standard clinical care, assessment and treatment is not one which is providing “good care”.
"that is how I read it too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were providing good care in what they were doing, the problem and what the press had said is bad care is that they were taking so long to provide it. Which is why they are opening 8 regional centres to replace it. From multiple sources: The Cass review was commissioned in September 2020 due to the rise in demand, long waiting times for assessments and “significant external scrutiny” around GIDS’ approach and capacity, the NHS said. It concluded that the service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists, was not keeping “routine and consistent” data on its patients, and found that health staff felt under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”. It was providing bad care, this is sugar coated to prevent upset. In my opinion it is not worth your time defending, it wasn't doing the job. You do realise other than some admin issues you just said what I said right? You just classified it differently. It was not assessing the children coming through the door correctly, it is written down in the report, staff felt under pressure not to challenge or question, a 1 size fits all was adopted. The NHS shut it down. It saddens me that I need to spell it out to you, because it reinforces my feeling that you twist the truth to support Trans no matter what. If I was in the same position, I would take the positive and promote that. the positive: This centre was not performing, not delivering services at a standard its customers should have expected, but the NHS recognised this through an independent report and has acted in the best interests of all concerned, and is committed to opening 2 new centres that will offer the services at the standards expected. But you do you
It would certainly appear from the interim report that the level of service and care was not “good” otherwise it would not have been necessary to write, “ Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services.?“
The report is of course affirming many of the findings of the cqc inspection which found the overall rating for the service to be inadequate.
An inadequate service providing sub standard clinical care, assessment and treatment is not one which is providing “good care”.
"That misses the context. "The rapid increase in the number of children requiting support l and the complex case mix means that the current model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable" In the report "Additionally children and young people with gender related deiaeases have been inadvertently disadvantaged because local services ahve not felt adequately equipped to see them" So the statement could be in relation to the wider NHS experience. Which is why a "fundamentally different service model is needed more in line with other paediatric provision" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am welcoming the Tavistock closing, the stated goals if kept to will mean so much better healthcare for trans youth in this country. I just don't want a false narrative being spun which will later be used by critics to strip that healthcare away. And there are many trying to do that right now, with both why the changes are happening and with the OP's headline about the Tavistock being "sued". Do I give them more credit than they deserve, maybe, but I don't think by a big enough margin to be important. They have helped an incredibly large amount of people, that needs to be remembered in the discussion." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
