Talk

Advanced search

Puberty blockers and consent to treatment: an analysis of the High Court’s ruling - article in Community Care

(8 Posts)
stumbledin Sat 12-Dec-20 23:49:55

Quite a low key article but does at least raise the issue that social workers have or may have a role.

" ... Therefore, although the court acknowledges that a lack of evidence in experimental medicine is not a barrier to competence per se, it is the combination of this with the potentially profound lifelong consequences that a child will struggle to comprehend that has led it to conclude that Gillick competence for a child under 16 is highly unlikely to be reached, no matter how much information and support is given.

This judgment also gives social work pause for thought. Social workers, by virtue of the profession, are interested in issues of social justice and welcome diversity and difference. However, just as for the medical profession, we do need to ensure that foremost, we do no harm."

www.communitycare.co.uk/2020/12/11/puberty-blockers-consent-treatment-analysis-high-courts-ruling/

OP’s posts: |
persistentwoman Sun 13-Dec-20 00:12:42

Thank you Stumbledin
That's an important article as so many social workers have been unthinking cheerleaders for trans lobby groups. Years ago the Child J judgement seriously criticised some for their unthinking affirmation of J as a girl in the face of all the evidence.
This judgement is so important.

Defaultname Sun 13-Dec-20 01:15:48

The sub-heading is worded in a misleading way:

"The experimental nature and potential lifelong consequences of puberty-suppressing medication led judges to conclude that the courts must sanction its use for children suffering gender dysphoria".

Causing a casual reader to conclude that judges MUST sanction its use...

The line about "Social workers, by virtue of the profession, are interested in issues of social justice and welcome diversity and difference." is worrying,too, since, despite what queer-theorists might believe, some differences are not for the better. I think a close eye needs to be kept on social-workers.

Overall, a marvelous article which could have a lot of impact.

I liked Michelle Janas' admission that "The judges considered both evidence presented and case law, and as it is not within my expertise to cover them all, (Marina Wheeler QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/12/04/puberty-blocking-can-a-child-consent gives a neat summary). I will instead restrict myself to medical aspects."

"The safety data here is paramount, as it helps prevent catastrophic unintended consequences of untested medications, as seen in the thalidomide scandal of the 1950s." will open a few eyes.

(The Wheeler piece she cites concludes "On a number of occasions, within its Judgment, the Court expressed its “surprise” at the absence of data necessary to assess the impact and efficacy of the treatment provided. Reading this put me in mind of the recently-published Cumberlege Review, First Do No Harm, into the tragic consequences of three well-intentioned medical interventions. One, the vaginal mesh, was prescribed to women to relieve pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. It helped many but others suffered decades of excruciating pain and life-changing side-effects. This was due in part to the system “flying blind” – relevant data about the impact treatment was not collated so the experience of this patient group was never systematically analysed and acted upon. Innovation in medicine is good, the Review concluded. The desire to relieve suffering is right. But where the effect of treatment is irreversible and profound, caution is necessary to avoid inadvertently causing harm. As I read it, the Court in Bell v Tavistock were conveying a similar message."(.

donquixotedelamancha Sun 13-Dec-20 10:05:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

donquixotedelamancha Sun 13-Dec-20 10:09:11

Sorry posted this on wrong thread (while looking at this one with it already). Perils of trying to lie in with two young children.

Angryresister Sun 13-Dec-20 10:49:41

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

persistentwoman Sun 13-Dec-20 13:38:27

This is one of the professions that desperately needs to be prised away from the influence of the lobby groups - they are so powerful in terms of enabling parental alienation (as evidenced in the Child J judgement).

Presumably some of these changes may come from government legislation / guidance (as we have seen with the DfE SRE guidelines)?

OldCrone Sun 13-Dec-20 13:53:59

The line about "Social workers, by virtue of the profession, are interested in issues of social justice and welcome diversity and difference." is worrying,too, since, despite what queer-theorists might believe, some differences are not for the better. I think a close eye needs to be kept on social-workers.

I also found that line worrying, but more because genderism is a denial of differences and diversity. It is about the rigid imposition of gender stereotypes. It denies the existence of femininity in boys and masculinity in girls and a wide range of personality types in both sexes.

The author is implying here that when we state the scientific truth that people can't change sex, and wish to prevent children from starting on an irreversible medical pathway before they are old enough to fully understand what they are doing, we are somehow against 'difference and diversity'. This is clearly untrue.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in