It’s worth remembering that the grant of leave to appeal does not change the judgement of the court.
The rule of law will and should run its course. In the meantime, all any of us can do is to follow the law as it stands.
Don’t trust anyone that suggests otherwise.
The rule of law will and should run its course. In the meantime, all any of us can do is to follow the law as it stands.
Don’t trust anyone that suggests otherwise.
2/ Here is the original order of the court in Bell v Tavistock dated 2/12/20 para 3 of which grants a stay of the order pending permission to appeal, until the Court of Appeal determines permission & the stay. Permission granted, was the continuation of the stay too? 
3/ The Tavistock implanted the order almost immediately by amending its contract with GIDS, despite the stay. The rationale for that hasn’t changed. The judgement & Order were so emphatic that I think it would be a brave or foolish clinician that would not seek to implement it.
4/ Let’s wait to see official confirmation that the Order granting the stay continues to the appeal. If the stay continues then in my view, only clinicians with a questionable grasp of ethics will continue to prescribe.
The order will loom heavily over all prescribing PBs.
The order will loom heavily over all prescribing PBs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
