Talk

Advanced search

Child medical transition without parental consent

(26 Posts)
Minkowski Wed 05-Apr-17 23:30:50

I thought people here might be interested to know that Stonewall are launching a new campaign for trans rights and one of the campaign goals is:

"Trans young people, including those who identify as non-binary, to have the right to medical confidentiality and individual consent in line with Gillick competencies."

You probably know that Gillick competence means that:

"Children under 16 can consent to medical treatment if they understand what is being proposed. It is up to the doctor to decide whether the child has the maturity and intelligence to fully understand the nature of the treatment, the options, the risks involved and the benefits. A child who has such understanding is considered Gillick competent (or Fraser competent). The parents cannot overrule the child’s consent when the child is judged to be Gillick competent."

The Stonewall draft campaign document is available here:
pdf version, page 20
www.stonewall.org.uk/vision-change

Word version, page 23
www.stonewall.org.uk/events/vision-change-trans-consultation-meeting-cardiff

DJBaggySmalls Wed 05-Apr-17 23:34:46

Long term testosterone use causes heart attacks, and long term estrogen use increases the risk of breast cancer. Which is harder to detect behind implants.

Kids cann't grasp mortality, they dont worry about lung cancer when they start smoking. they take up dangerous sports.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120401134933.htm

JigglyTuff Thu 06-Apr-17 00:01:58

Fuck off Stonewall. I really used to rate them but they've become a really awful organisation which is totally trans-centred.

Clonakilty Thu 06-Apr-17 01:37:11

I can't stand what they have become either. The transwomen agenda is the only thing they concentrate on - the patriarchy. Lesbians come nowhere. Women don't matter.
The organisation is a disgrace and I want nothing more to do with them. I am ashamed to say that I once had a direct debit with them. They can go jump in the lake.
Ruth Hunt runs it now - that woman seriously needs to take a look at herself; she has let women down and I have no respect for her at all.

highinthesky Thu 06-Apr-17 02:22:00

I like to think the medical establishment will provide a better safeguard than Stonewall. That, along with crazy NHS waiting lists.

With that in mind, there is nothing to worry about.

LovelyHandcream Thu 06-Apr-17 07:52:14

I agree with high - medics will need to be balancing a lot of issues that advocacy organisations don't really need to think about re determining the best interests of Gillick competent children hmm
So you'd hope doctors will be taking a more evidence-based view about outcome and risks etc as with any other major medical decision. They will also have gathered individualised knowledge and understanding of their patient. They will also be e.g well aware of the importance of family support to young people's wellbeing where this realistically may be available. Medical treatment without parental knowledge where something is high risk (so I don't mean putting a 15 year old on the pill) is not the norm or preferred route. Different process in the clinic, hopefully, from advocacy groups making points of principle in the abstract while seeking to influence policy and social attitudes.

CaoNiMartacus Thu 06-Apr-17 08:28:37

Ruth was the leader of the Student Union when I was at university. I always admired her. Now, not so much.

Poppyred85 Thu 06-Apr-17 10:36:43

As a doctor I can't see me coming across many (any) teenagers who will be Gillick competent in this area. Aside from that, the Gillick principle is only one part of medical ethics. I think many doctors would feel the same. Having said that there are some doctors who are happy to predcribe already in a manner which some may deem unethical or not in keeping with best practice.
On an entirely unrelated note I heard on the radio that one of Helen Webberley's online clinics has begun suspended, though I think one providing general GP services rather than those she offers to transgender people.

Prawnofthepatriarchy Thu 06-Apr-17 11:17:18

I was heavily involved in covering the court case that established the Gillick competency rule and the case was about access to contraception and abortion for under 16s. Victoria Gillick, a severe Christian, wanted to establish in law that HCP were prohibited from providing her under 16 children with reproductive health services without her consent. The Crown argued that the outcome for the children was what mattered, that if they felt unable to seek help they would be very much more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy. Further, whatever their mother's view on abortion, it was the child's unwanted pregnancy and therefore not the mother's decision to make.

The point of the Gillick ruling was that contraception and abortion tend to be immediate needs. If you're 14 and pregnant, It's no help saying that you can decide what you're going to do when you're 16. The ruling found that if a minor sought such advice and refused to involve their parents, the HCP should evaluate for themselves whether the minor was mature enough to make such a decision. That's the "competency" bit.

I don't think Gillick could be used for treatment that will sterilize you and leave boys to grow up with undeveloped genitals. The consequences are far too serious, surely? The whole point of Gillick was to help teenagers not to suffer long-term harm, and I doubt someone that age would be competent to evaluate the long term effects of medical transition.

YetAnotherSpartacus Thu 06-Apr-17 11:17:25

I do know that TRAs are doing their best to get 'their people' into a range of roles that allow them access to young trans-identifying people with the aim of making sure that they push them down the path of medical intervention (or keep them away from those who might raise warning flags re this). At the same time, they are advocating for trans to be seen as a safeguarding issue (if parents won't allow drugs they want this to be seen as a denial of medical care) and for the kinds of changes in 'consent' seen above.

VestalVirgin Thu 06-Apr-17 11:37:01

I don't think Gillick could be used for treatment that will sterilize you and leave boys to grow up with undeveloped genitals. The consequences are far too serious, surely?

Society in general does not seem to be aware of the harm puberty blockers do, so I fear this could become law.

The insanity will not end before some adults sue the surgeons who transed them as children. Give it a couple of years.

Poppyred85 Thu 06-Apr-17 13:12:38

Yet
Can I ask how you know that? Is that in the UK? Not asking in a disbeliving way but genuinely trying to work out wtf is going on and who and where this agenda is being pushed from.

YetAnotherSpartacus Thu 06-Apr-17 13:28:22

It's not from healthcare professionals (like you), but those around them ... The law and policy advocacy is coming from a range of organisations (like Stonewall), but also GIRES and the like (similar orgs). We know even from MN that they are amazingly well organised.

I come across individual TRAs who want to get into (or are in) the kinds of positions (such as social work ones, just as an example) that might allow them to 'save' young people from those who are anti-trans. I do know that there is a push for advocacy re children and young people to be able to access care that might be contra to the wishes of parents. It is vaguely through my work, but I don't want to say any more here. Like many, I'm too scared re my job.

DJBaggySmalls Thu 06-Apr-17 14:51:37

They are advocating castrating and sterilizing children. When you put it that way you can see how harmful it is.

MrsGWay Thu 06-Apr-17 18:56:39

I think anyon e who says this just won't happen is being naive. The trans lobby is very powerful and capable of anything in my opinion. I remember talking about their agenda about a year ago with my husband. He thought I was worrying about nothing as it all sounded so ludicrous, but here we are with schools telling young girls to accept males as girls and the CPS threatening them with hate crime offences if they believe any different.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Fri 07-Apr-17 08:44:48

This post from 4th Wave Now is terrifying. They're targeting toddlers now. OK, that's in the US but it's on Youtube and there will be credulous parents over here who will expose their children to this pernicious nonsense.

ChocChocPorridge Fri 07-Apr-17 09:04:54

Society in general does not seem to be aware of the harm puberty blockers do, so I fear this could become law.

This is it - people forget that many drugs are dangerous, but, they're better than the alternative - eg. the pill, generally seen as safe, but in reality it has many risks, it's just that on balance those risks are lower than the risks of pregnancy.

The puberty blockers, when used for their intended purpose, cause less harm than a kid going through premature puberty, or is better than prostate cancer. They justify giving it to healthy children by saying it's better than suicide, but that's a humongous leap.

If I have a gangrenous leg, then they chop it off (my medical knowledge may be a couple of hundred years out of date on that) because living with 1 leg is better than dying. Doesn't mean that chopping off a healthy leg is a good idea.

Datun Fri 07-Apr-17 09:07:07

Gasp

That video is pernicious and dangerous. Telling children they can't tell if someone is a man or a woman unless they ask.

We teach our children to be aware of strangers. Statistically, the predators are going to be male. But you can disregard that because he might say he's a woman. In which case, he is, dear.

This comment struck me:

I’ve been saying for a long time there’s an element of pedophilia to the trans movement the way it has been for a long time now. Confuse the kids so they don’t know which class of people is more dangerous (especially sexually). Get them used to male nudity in the locker rooms so they don’t think there is anything wrong with it when some pervert shows them his genitals in the playground. I bet you anything pedophiles are supporting them financially.

OneFlewOverTheDodosNest Fri 07-Apr-17 09:59:50

The insanity will not end before some adults sue the surgeons who transed them as children. Give it a couple of years.

Vestal A surgeon, Curtis Crane in the US is already facing multiple lawsuits from former patients. The patients claim they were lied to about the risks of phalloplasty, were not warned that created penises will like die after 10 years and then actively refused post operative care telling them that swelling, burning and a funny smell are all normal signs of healing when they are actually very worrying symptoms of severe post-operative infection.

BarbarianMum Fri 07-Apr-17 10:07:27

I don't think children should transition physically but if a child with Gillick competency is able to decide whether a pregnancy should be continued, or a heart transplant be accepted or further chemotherapy is desirable then it does seem inconsistent to withhold trans treatment on the basis of age (I'd rather see it being withheld as being medically unsound practice).

BigGreenOlives Fri 07-Apr-17 10:22:03

One of the benefits of the NHS being so overstretched is that it is hard for teens to be assessed etc. The wait to see someone at the Tavistock is 9 months, they won't help a teen obtain drugs unless they have been dressing as the other sex for 5 years. The respectable clinics with experience of TG won't treat under 18s or under 21s in some instances.

Minkowski Fri 07-Apr-17 11:10:29

Gender professionals are also pushing to lower the age for gender surgery.

www.facebook.com/groups/WPATH/permalink/1168174486560309/

The Facebook group is WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health). The OP is a leading gender physician and many of the people commenting are professionals in the field.

Although the conversation is US-focused, the Standards of Care (SOC) that they are discussing changing apply worldwide.

shinynewusername Sat 08-Apr-17 07:19:50

Anyone who doesn't think this can happen is naive.

I'm a doctor who does medicolegal work. I agree with Prawn that no one under 16 is truly able to understand the consequences of lifelong sterilisation and dangerous hormones, so it should follow that no one under 16 is considered Gillick competent - as you are not Gillick competent if you don't fully understand the consequences of your decision.

The problem is that the assessment of Gillick competence is carried out by the same doctors who will perform the treatment. In most cases, this is not a problem because the doctors involved have no agenda of their own. But who is going to be assessing competence for Trans treatments? Obviously doctors who are signed up to the "benefits" of lifelong hormones & sterilisation as those are the only doctors who offer these treatments. So the doctors assessing competence are the same doctors pushing Trans.

LovelyHandcream Sat 08-Apr-17 09:16:54

This seems ironic when some adult women (esp when childless and under 30) have to argue for years to be sterilised via the NHS because they are repeatedly told to wait and they will change their minds etc.

VestalVirgin Sat 08-Apr-17 12:27:14

I don't think children should transition physically but if a child with Gillick competency is able to decide whether a pregnancy should be continued, or a heart transplant be accepted or further chemotherapy is desirable then it does seem inconsistent to withhold trans treatment on the basis of age (I'd rather see it being withheld as being medically unsound practice).

Not at all inconsistent if transing is treated as cosmetic surgery, which it should.
If adult men want to have their penis and testicles chopped off, they should have the right to have that done (considering that some of those who had the procedure very much like to tell women to suck their non-existent dick, humanity as a whole is probably better off that way), but it should be treated as cosmetic surgery, which I believe children are not allowed to have with or without the consent of their parents. (I would actually make financial independence from parents a requirement to have cosmetic surgery with the parents' consent.)

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now