NHS say ignore parents even if child is not Gillick competent

[Datun]

It looks like The Telegraph has access to a lot of the FOI results. This can't go on, surely.

NHS staff are being advised to ignore parents’ wishes if they conflict with those of a child who identifies as transgender - even if the child is not considered to have the understanding and intelligence to consent

The policy of Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust states: “Where appropriate the wishes of the parents must be considered, but in the case of young people their preference should prevail.”

Adolescents might prefer to spend most of their day time in mixed areas, but must have access to same gender sleeping area, treatment rooms and sanitary facilities.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/11/nhs-staff-advised-ignore-parents-wishes-children-self-declare/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/11/nhs-staff-advised-ignore-parents-wishes-children-self-declare/

This is really disturbing. How far is the safety of our children going to be pushed, and for what reasons?

Rotherham again.

Teenagers can be really truly not the most rational of creatures, I say this recognising my own frankly nuts decisions as a teen and being the mother to teens.

But at least non of my mistakes were irreversible.

This is child abuse.

This is madness.

Joani Walsh is digging hard.

So my question is if a child, despite not being competent, gets to decide if they are trans or not, does that also mean they get to decide whether they get puberty blockers or not?

I find it hard to know where to lay the responsibility for such decisions. I only really know primary aged children who have transitioned and it is very, very parent driven at that age. I would hope the parent isn't allowed to push for treatment, that there is someone who allows the kids to back out.

I notice on these boards it's often assumed that the parents are the ones holding back, but my experience is the opposite. I also think the parents who have done this, often falling out with people and becoming very defensive, are less keen to desist than the kids might be, it becomes about proving a point.

There should be no decisions taken until the person is an adult, in extreme cases with mental health comorbidites, there should be a patient advocate or expert.

In my day teenagers got questionable piercings and dyed our hair. Some got regrettable tattoos.

Note how these things are different to having your breasts or bits of your genitalia surgically removed. Humans are not starfish - when you cut bits off they don't grow back.

It seems like the scales have fallen from the eyes of those in charge of the telegraph which is encouraging at least. How long till the nhs starts to realise what a disaster this is??

Addressing the topic in question I don’t see how it can possible be defensible to treat a non competent child against the wishes of their parent! It’s entirely unethical

Sorry pressed too soon
Especially when it’s basically experimental treatment using off licence drugs with unknown long term effects!!

Rotherham. Say no more.

Theswaggyotter

The paper says they have received over 100 answers to FOI requests. From what I can gather, FOI request are a fine art, and you have to know how to phrase your questions, otherwise they can be 'got around'.

So even asking the questions in the first place would have been driven by knowing what they were doing. Hopefully.

The fact that this is their second article, on as many days, does make me think there's more to come.

Given that Gillick competence exists as a concept and is applied to other medical decisions, what's the supposed justification for not applying it in this case? Someone at either the Telegraph or the Times needs to press the NHS for an answer.

Indeed kittens. What is the reason for ignoring Gillick competence? And how far does it extend?

And how come it's only when it's about fucking trans. Again.

There should be no decisions taken until the person is an adult, in extreme cases with mental health comorbidites, there should be a patient advocate or expert.
This. The most gut churning thing about it all is that childhood transitioning (from blockers onwards) only has one benefit - a better aesthetic result. That it's being pushed by adults who don't understand or care about safeguarding and who admit the comparative attractiveness of the end "product" is their major consideration, and that this kind of decision sets a precedent for children consenting to something they can't otherwise legally consent to - should set off alarm bells everywhere.
If transition is put off until 18: many desist, and those that do not are free to make whatever choices they want. They might be shorter and slighter than they wanted to be (ftm) or taller and broader than they wanted to be (mtf) but who else gets to pick these things anyway?
The sole reason for putting kids through any kind of medical transition, whether it be Lupron, cross-examination hormones or surgery (they do it under 18 in the US) - the sole reason is a preferred aesthetic result. It's not enough of a justification, no matter what Green might think.

Safeguarding gurus on here like Lang will repeatedly claim that trans children are the ones who are being targeted.

If this doesn't show it up, I don't know what does. Trans children who are not competent? Who is influencing them, then?

Deeply sinister implications, that throw the door wide open for other situations Inn which children are being left to make adult decisions.

Safeguarding gurus on here like Lang will repeatedly claim that trans children are the ones who are being targeted.

Not so much being targeted. I think, if a single issue lobby group is so focused on creating special cases of the group they're lobbying for and at the same time have not familiarised themselves with safeguarding principles, this is what happens.

Two things: ignorance means that you don't see the loopholes you yourself are helping to create; ignorance also means your lobby group is vulnerable to infiltration by the malign.

This is why safeguarding matters. Good intentions aren't enough, as the saying tells us.

ignorance also means your lobby group is vulnerable to infiltration by the malign.

Yes indeed. Lang, under what circumstances might the NHS have decided that children who are not Gillick competent can still make decisions in the teeth of parental opposition?

You don't build your systems on the assumption that most people will be nice (even if it's true), you build them to keep out the ones who're not.

This combined with the two tiny drag queens rings all sorts of alarm bells for me in terms of anything associated with "gender" putting kids in a group where normal safeguarding measures just aren't functioning properly and society is being trained not to protest because protesting isn't woke. Those kids deserve the same level of protection that all other kids are offered. What's the justification for them not getting it?

Those kids deserve the same level of protection that all other kids are offered. What's the justification for them not getting it?

This is my question. Why does Gillick competency suddenly not count if it's about a child identifying as trans?

Are there other circumstances where lack of competency is ignored.

I really hope the people writing these policies, and I can take an educated guess at who is behind that one, won't be hoping to rely on public money to defend themselves in court when the first raft of liability cases hit them.