Courts are struggling to find experts willing to give medical evidence in family law disputes about young people who want hormone treatment to change gender.
As reported by the Times, judges in two High Court rulings this month in disputes over whether puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones should be given to a person younger than 18 noted the lack of any medical expert in the UK willing to give evidence.
In one Mrs Justice Judd lifted an interim order that had been in place since last October preventing a father from arranging for Q, then 15, to access treatment for gender dysphoria from a private clinic. The mother had agreed that Q should join the waiting list for NHS treatment, but did not agree to the child accessing it privately. Waiting lists mean that Q would not be assessed or treated by the NHS until after turning 18.
The father of the child, now 16, who was born female but identifies as male, agreed to an undertaking not to fund or facilitate a referral to an offshore body such as Gender GP while Q remains younger than 18. The judge said it had “proved to be impossible to find a consultant endocrinologist in this country who was prepared to give expert evidence”.
In the first ruling on transgender medical issues that considered the Cass review — which found there was “no good evidence” to support giving young people potentially life-altering hormone treatment – the judge blamed “the toxicity of the debate” for the fact that it had not been possible to get medical evidence.
A week earlier, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the most senior family court judge, said in a ruling that there was “very significant concern” over children “accessing cross-hormone treatment from any offshore, online, unregulated private clinic”.
He had heard evidence from a paediatric endocrinologist based in Australia that the dosage of hormones prescribed to one teenager by the clinic, GenderGP, after a single online consultation with a counsellor, was so high it was “dangerously high” and “frankly negligent”.
Despite an “extensive” exercise, McFarlane said that it had been impossible to identify an endocrinologist in the UK who was prepared to give evidence.
In addition to criticism that the limited number of trans specialists may receive if they comment on the “highly contentious” subject, Simon Berney-Edwards, the chief executive of Expert Witness Institute, says they are also likely to be subjected to vexatious complaints and harassment.
Paul Conrathe, the solicitor at Sinclairslaw who represented Q’s mother, says that he has spoken to many potential expert witnesses, who express “concerns about being personally vilified and that the grief is not worth it”. In particular he argues that there is a “hostile and intimidating environment for anyone that seeks to question an affirmative approach to hormonal treatment”.
Low fees, court timetabling, processes and the volume of material, as well as a lack of support and training and possible criticism by lawyers, judges and the press have also previously been found to contribute to the unwillingness of expert witnesses to appear.
Worth reading in full.
