Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please acknowledge this request.

You published “Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: independent report” on 19 July 2024.

In the report Professor Appleby wrote, “In this period of 6 years the data show a total of 12 suicides: 6 in the under 18s, 6 in those 18 and above. In the 3 years leading up to 2020-21, there were 5 suicides, compared to 7 in the 3 years after. This is essentially no difference, taking account of expected fluctuations in small numbers, and would not reach statistical significance. In the under 18s specifically, there were 3 suicides before and 3 after 2020-21.”

And he wrote, “the figures are for ‘NHS years’, April to March, so the timing of the High Court judgment does not fall neatly between years.”

In relation to his summary, please let me know:
1. Out of the 12 total suicides, how many occurred before April 2020?
2. Out of the 12 total suicides, how many occurred on or after April 2020?
3. Out of the 6 suicides involving individuals under 18, how many occurred before April 2020?
4. Out of the 6 suicides involving individuals under 18, how many occurred on or after April 2020?
5. Is the numeric answer to (3) greater than the answer to (4)?

You are reminded that, according to ICO guidance and case laws, there is an overriding public interest in verifying or refuting misleading statistical claims. You must consider the public interest in relation to each question individually, in particular question (5). I would be grateful if you could disprove my plausible suspicion as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

E A Lee

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health and Social Care's handling of my FOI request 'Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock: disambiguating dates and figures'.

1. Please review the scope of your search.
2. Please review and confirm whether you are aware that Louis Appleby holds the requested information.
3. Please review and confirm whether the relevant information received by you or Louis Appleby from NHS England is considered to be held by you and therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Yours faithfully,

E A Lee

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health and Social Care's handling of my FOI request 'Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock: disambiguating dates and figures'.

In a previous internal review IR-1531007 (FOI-1519668), you found out that you do hold the requested information but you consider the information to be exempt from disclosure under section 38(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. To avoid an unnecessary complaint to the ICO, you are being given the opportunity to conduct another internal review.

1. Samaritans Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide

It appears to be unlawful to rely on the Samaritans Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide in reaching your decision. Please clarify to what extent do you consider these guidelines to be relevant and why. You may take them into account but you cannot rely on them.

The requester is well aware of intentional misrepresentations of the Samaritans Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide. These guidelines do not include any recommendations that inhibit freedom of information.

You provided several misquotes of the guidelines. Rather than repeating them, I will provide the correct quotes and point out why they are not relevant.

On page 5, it states, "the research shows that certain types of media depictions, such as explicitly describing a method and sensational and excessive coverage, can lead to imitational suicidal behaviour among vulnerable people."

None of the requested information matches the types of media depictions mentioned therein.

On page 7, it states, "Avoid mentioning suicide methods [...] Steer clear of portraying anything that is easy to imitate, for example where the materials or ingredients involved are readily available and providing details on how it was carried out. This can increase risk by presenting suicide as easily achievable."

None of the requested information involves suicide methods.

On page 12, it states, "Be mindful of statistics. Using ‘trend’ data within suicide stories can be problematic. Be aware that suicide rates in a single year may deviate from an overall trend. This can be especially the case if focusing on the number of suicides in small geographic areas or particular groups. It is best to look at timeframes of three or more years to identify significant patterns."

It supports the release of information rather than advise against it. I requested numerical data and the answer to a yes/no question at timeframes of three or more years to verify or refute the existence of a significant pattern (as claimed by you and Louis Appleby publicly). No trend data is requested.

2. Distress to living relatives

In the landmark case of Lownie v Information Commissioner and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: [2024] UKUT 116 (AAC) the Tribunal rejected the argument that the necessary probability of “distress” to living relatives would be sufficient to meet the requirements of section 38, finding that: “Whilst distress can be a trigger leading to mental ill-health, we do not consider that distress in itself should be equated with mental ill-health for the purposes of s.38. A healthy or unhealthy person may experience distress without suffering any, or any additional mental ill-health” (paragraph 49).

The Tribunal stated that a risk was not the same as a specific danger. In finding that the degree of probability was insufficient, the Tribunal judged that section 38 was not engaged.

3. Likely to lead to an increase in suicide attempts

You consider that the disclosure of the requested information would be likely to have those effects, as it would be likely to lead to an increase in suicide attempts.

Please review and elaborate.

Once again, none of the requested information involves suicide methods or includes more granular numerical data than what is already provided in your publication.

4. Public interest in verifying or refuting misleading statistical claims

Finally, as I pointed out in the original email, according to ICO guidance and case laws, there is an overriding public interest in verifying or refuting misleading statistical claims. You must consider the public interest in relation to each request individually. This was not done.

I would be grateful if you could disprove my plausible suspicion that you misused statistics as soon as possible.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Yours faithfully,
E A Lee

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please acknowledge my request for an internal review dated 17 Oct 2024.

Yours faithfully,

E A Lee