Court verdict on puberty blockers won't affect Scottish children

A person under the age of 16 years shall have legal capacity to consent on his own behalf to any surgical, medical or dental procedure or treatment where, in the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner attending him, he is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment. (Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1981)

However, that medical practitioner has just received clear guidance that the court of protection do not consider children 13 and under capable of making this decision, and that 14/15 year olds are unlikely to. It has also been laid out what conditions need to be met in order for then to be considered capable to do so. It would be fool hardy of any doctor (a psychologist doesn’t count) to ignore this.

Over 16 they may have capacity but they still need to give informed consent. The court ruled that 16/17 may not be able to consent. There are other groups of 16 and overs who may also not be able to consent; those with learning disabilities, those with brain injuries, or those with mental illness, I would hope in all these cases where there is doubt about ability to give informed consent that the courts would be consulted.

These cases may not apply directly but they give such a strong indication of what a Scottish court Is likely to decide that I would have thought medical indemnity insurers would insist these decision is followed.

I can’t imagine why a responsible clinic in Scotland would look at what just happened in the High Court and not think there’s anything they have to do in response. Did they not get the fundamental point that the court has said that no child can consent to these medications because nobody is clear on either the benefits or the side effects? Have they spoken to their insurers? Seems bonkers. Perhaps they think it’ll get reversed on appeal, seems a gamble though.

Ideological strength of feeling versus law, reality, child safeguarding and other people's rights.

Well it's going to have to happen. Over and over. Let's get it over with.

The SNP are Woke Central, and desperate to do the opposite to England whenever possible. They have been very hostile to their own GC members (Joanna Cherry et al) and I bet they will try to keep it “business as usual” for the pushers of puberty blockers in Scotland. They have sold out to the trans rights activists hook line and sinker. Child safeguarding is a much lesser priority.
One can only hope for a similar legal test case in the Scottish courts.

Also, I was surprised their press release made no reference to the court case. I've oils have thought they'd at least offer a token "review of procedures" ...

I wonder what their indemnity insurance will look like given the High Court ruling. It’s hard to ignore the precedent even if the too systems are different.

I saw this, the only reason I can think for their position is that they already have a very robust process for determining competency, and therefore very rarely give puberty blockers?

This is an interesting way to develop new income streams for a newly independent Scotland.

I don't give a fuck what anyone says, if 4 year olds are being referred, it's because this is being deliberately put in their heads. This is not a normal thing for 4 year olds to be worrying about at all. This is down to the adults around them.

16 is the age of legal adulthood in Scotland, so that does make a difference.

Scots 16 year olds can vote I think (independence lobby looking for votes )

Anyone with a claim or grievance against this clinic will have a bang on certain vicotry
Yup, because if they're "functioning" like the Tavi did then they're not applying Gillick like they should be either. It does apply in Scotland.

Or why Scottish children are capable of consenting to lose of fertility and sexual function. Or why they disagree that consenting to PBs also requires consent to CSH.

Obviously Scottish children reach cognitive and psychosocial maturity about 6 years sooner than English children.

Cool.

Maybe that's why 4 year olds are being referred, as they are the equivalent of the English 10 year olds.

I am sure this clinic wont just be able to state what they can and can't do with regards to Kiera Bells case. The highest court in these cases is the Supreme Court and I'm pretty sure the Scottish courts would use UK as precedence before any case getting that far. The UK court case was a judicial review.

Anyone with a claim or grievance against this clinic will have a bang on certain vicotry

Well the Scots will have to fund a similar case then.

Its interesting that they don't say why they think Scottish children can consent, ie. where they think the court's reasoning is incorrect.

I wonder how many parents will be put off going to Sandyford now. If you are in the slightest bit dubious I can’t see you taking your child there. Perhaps they will see a big drop in referrals.

It does say in that article that they don't accept referrals from England.

Well that clinic is going to get an influx of patients from E&W then.

When they can't cope they will be told they aren't doing a good enough job, it takes too long to get an appointment (even longer than before), etc...then the argument will follow that they need more clinics, and round and round we go.

Hopefully the law suits won't be too far away and this will press the pause button.

Good grief. I thought they would be reasonable after they withdrew their pamphlet for young people after the puberty blockers info was changed by NHS England.

Also: referrals for 4 year olds! My DD1 told us she was a tiger for two years starting at age 4. What the fuck are those parents thinking?!

I hope their procedures applying Gillick competence are robust already or they will be indeed sitting ducks.