Keira judgement and abortion rights

^^ just agreeing with everything Viques already said very eloquently

They ( the judges) have made it quite clear that Gillick competency has been examined thoroughly over the years in other legal situations and judgements -they offer various different cases which have tested the ruling in the past - and are clear that the PB judgement falls into the category where a young person can not be expected (for various reasons) to understand what the long term implications of their treatment is. [In the case of PB this is reinforced of course by the fact that no one knows what the long term effects are for physical, emotional and cognitive development]

Contraception and abortion issues do not fall into this category.

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

I am somewhat worried that it's projection as usual and that a move towards opposing abortion rights, perhaps on the grounds of "gender equality" and the father having a right to participate in the decision, is on the medium-term horizon.

Yes, it shows how little they understand or care about consent.. but then that much is all too clear

There is nothing to reconcile.
We can have abortion rights and do away with the notion of 'wrong puberty'.

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

The ruling here doesn't alter anything about Gillick competency, and the ruling agrees that an under-16-year-old could in principle consent to puberty blockers given sufficient understanding, just like any "treatment".

But the court ruled that's it's not clear that this could be possible in practice as there is not enough understanding of puberty blockers by anyone.

One day they /might/ be proved to be safe and to actually benefit - then a child could consent.

So for now any treatment must come via court to make a judgment.

Allowing a teen access to safe abortion provided they are Fraser competent enables them to avoid the life long effects of an unwanted pregnancy and forced birth.

It's the complete opposite of allowing a child to launch themselves down a medical pathway involving unlicenced, off label drugs with potentially life changing side effects (osteoporosis in your 20s) and irreversible changes due to cross sex hormones and surgery.

The two situations are not in the slightest bit comparable: in fact they are polar opposites.

The fact of the matter is that abortion maintains the status quo (ie. having a baby is what would lead to life-changing issues) and is provably safer than pregnancy (especially in children).

This is the exact opposite of puberty blockers, where taking them will lead to life-changing issues, and they are not provably safer than not taking them.

I’m sorry - can you give examples? My understanding is that if a 12 year old is pregnant having to give birth would not only potentially damage her future but also her body may not yet be fully mature to handle it. If she is on blockers and then hormones she could never mature enough to be able to get pregnant or enjoy sex.

Could this judgement impact on abortion rights?

No, as abortions are a well-understood procedure with a well-understood aim, and the repercussions of not having it are well understood.

Whereas puberty blockers:

134. The starting point is to consider the nature of the treatment proposed. The administration of PBs to people going through puberty is a very unusual treatment for the following reasons. Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity over the purpose of the treatment: in particular, whether it provides a “pause to think” in a “hormone neutral” state or is a treatment to limit the effects of puberty, and thus the need for greater surgical and chemical intervention later, as referred to in the Health Research Authority report. Thirdly, the consequences of the treatment are highly complex and potentially lifelong and life changing in the most fundamental way imaginable. The treatment goes to the heart of an individual’s identity, and is thus, quite possibly, unique as a medical treatment.

To repeat that:

very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve

This is not remotely like an abortion.