AIBU about transgender person taking legal action against NHS for allowing her to transition? [[title edited by MNHQ on OP's behalf]]

[HollyGoLoudly1]

A 23 year old is taking legal action against the NHS for giving her treatment to transition to male as a teenager. She has since decided to live as a female and is taking legal action against the NHS as they should have 'challenged her' more when she wanted to transition rather than giving her the treatment.

The NHS can't do right for doing wrong here. Cash strapped to the point of collapse and being sued for giving someone the treatment they asked for. I despair.

AIBU or is this absolutely ludicrous?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51676020
from MNHQ - this title and OP originally said the person concerned was suing the NHS. They are in fact just taking legal action. The OP has asked us to make this clear but you may find some of the early posts reflect the words in the original title

16 year olds can consent to tried and tested treatments. Perhaps when treatment is highly experimental, with no data to support longterm outcomes, more caution should be used?

They are wanting to draw a parallel with right to abortion & possibly contraception.

But how will you stop it from being applied across the board?

How can you argue, on the one hand, that 16 - 18 year olds aren't mature enough to consent to irreversible medical treatment (puberty blockers) and then on the other hand argue that 16 - 18 year olds, and indeed younger can consent to irreversible medical treatment (abortion, amputation, organ transplant, chemotherapy, stoma formation etc etc etc)

Well, yes they can. 16 year olds consent to all medical or surgical treatment that they are undergoing, some of which will be irreversible

You think it's appropriate that sixteen year old girls are requesting life altering pharmaceuticals from NHS doctors after a couple of appointments and they are given them?

I'm in agreement with a few pp about the bottom tier of who is behind all this. Its about adult males getting safeguarding diluted and ultimately removed, giving them complete access to children and women. Paedophiles. Paedophiles and the MRA are right there, beside big pharma, rubbing their sweaty hands together and licking their chops at the feast to come. Keira and her like are simply "product" for them to consume. My heart goes out to them all.

Well, yes they can. 16 year olds consent to all medical or surgical treatment that they are undergoing, some of which will be irreversible. Under 16s are also able to give consent. So, would you see that stopped too? Should medical consent be raised to 18 for everything?*

No, only things that are self diagnosed via the internet, things that have no objective tests.

Find a way of diagnosing trans people via blood tests or brain scans or similar and thus ruling out erroneously treating people like Keira and it’ll be a completely different scenario.

You don’t give a kid chemo without testing them for cancer, because they sincerely believe they have cancer, as an example.

and indeed younger can consent to irreversible medical treatment (abortion, amputation

Can you give an example of a 16 year old in the UK who has requested amputation of a healthy body part and been given it?

rgue that 16 - 18 year olds, and indeed younger can consent to irreversible medical treatment (abortion, amputation, organ transplant, chemotherapy, stoma formation etc etc etc

All these examples have objective diagnostic criteria.

FFS.
However, This is probably good!
Hopefully the NHS will put more procedures in place to stop people transitioning too young and too easily.

BovaryX
I don’t know very much about this. However, I have learnt there are many factors. A lot of this has been discussed on this thread already. A statistically larger proportion of autistic children are identifying as trans, children in turmoil or care, some may previously have become anorexic instead or as well, because girls see being male as strong, to identify out of being lesbian as it’s just not trendy, not wanting to go through puberty, because they are fighting against the toxic male led gender stereotyping, which some trans elements have brought in. Probably many more reasons.

Please anyone feel free to edit or enlighten me further.

You think it's appropriate that sixteen year old girls are requesting life altering pharmaceuticals from NHS doctors after a couple of appointments and they are given them?
That wasn't the question asked. The question asked was can 16 year olds consent to irreversible medical treatment, and the answer to that question is "yes they can".

But how will you stop it from being applied across the board?

How can you argue, on the one hand, that 16 - 18 year olds aren't mature enough to consent to irreversible medical treatment (puberty blockers) and then on the other hand argue that 16 - 18 year olds, and indeed younger can consent to irreversible medical treatment (abortion, amputation, organ transplant, chemotherapy, stoma formation etc etc etc)

That anyone would react like this to the specifics of this Judicial Review leaves my flabber ghasted.

This will though be the argument made on social media.

(often by people who have little understanding or respect for Safeguarding)

It can go one of two ways if you ask me.

1. No transitioning possible before the age of 25 (when the brain is fully developed) and lots of therapy.
2. Give the TRA's what they want and transition the children as soon as possible. Because it makes them infertile we will probably remove the whole problem from the gene pool in a few generations. I seriously don't know why parents are okay with making their children infertile but if being woke is more important than their kids health then best if they stop muddling the gene pool.

Its about adult males getting safeguarding diluted and ultimately removed, giving them complete access to children and women.

It is indeed!

To consent you need to understand the implications of something. How can a 12 year old understand how loss of sexual function or infertility will effect their life.

WTF someone has seriously suggested that the outcome could be a ban on all treatment including life saving for anyone under 18 in the UK

Nuance, common sense is totally unknown to some people it seems. How do they get by in daily life

All these examples have objective diagnostic criteria.

Maybe so, but that point hasn't been raised here. The argument being raised is that 16 - 20 year olds shouldn't be able to consent to irreversible medical.procedures because they aren't mature enough to make those decisions (when it comes to gender reassignment). So how are they mature enough then to consent to any other irreversible medical treatment?

'Methylphenidate is the most commonly prescribed drug for ADHD worldwide. It’s known by a number of brand names, including Ritalin, Concerta, Metadate, Daytrana, and Quillivant. Although it has been used for over 50 years to treat ADHD — and studies have found it to be effective in decreasing the symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity — there had been no comprehensive, systematic reviews of the benefits and risks of this drug until this study.'

I think methylphenidate can be life changing in a good way for some children. But the point is that the medication used in GIDS is not necessarily so different in terms of how much or little is known about future impact when first used, than other medications that are or have been prescribed in camhs.

WTF someone has seriously suggested that the outcome could be a ban on all treatment including life saving for anyone under 18 in the UK grin

@FrogsFrogs - explain how you would differentiate then between treatment for gender dysphoria and any other treatment that a 16 - 20 year old might require?

the answer to that question is "yes they can"

The answer to that question is going before a judge.

Kids with cancer don’t get to choose chemo drugs. If they say no, it goes to the parent. If the parent says no, it goes to a judge.
Consent isn’t consent if you can only say yes. You are completely wrong about how consent works in paediatric medicine.

Do you really see this as a gotcha

You're funny.

Yes it's just the same as amputating a limb to save a life after a car crash. Totally.

The question asked was can 16 year olds consent to irreversible medical treatment, and the answer to that question is "yes they can".

But in the case of chemo, transplants, etc, only because there is clear and undeniable clinical need based on actual measurable physical symptoms and only, presumably, because the other options available have been discussed with the 16 year old and the foreseeable side effects fully explained.

Not comparable. Not comparable at all.

Drawing comparisons to contraception is laughable. The only form of contraception that's 100% irreversible is having a hysterectomy. Everything else is temporary . And whilst one cannot undo having an abortion, one can go on to try and become pregnant again.

It's nothing like having your breasts amputated, or your forearm permanently mutilated because muscle and skin have been carved out of it to create a man-made phallus, or your testicles cut off and your penis inverted into a man-made space in your body to create a neo-vaginal cavity.

It's nothing like having your bone density permanently affected, being a life-long medical patient because you need drugs to maintain the features of your chosen 'gender', and being permanently sterile.

The current 'treatment protocols' are creating a generation of lifelong medical patients with little or no sexual function and no ability to have children of their own should they wish to. It's a disgrace.

The argument being raised is that 16 - 20 year olds shouldn't be able to consent to irreversible medical.procedures because they aren't mature enough to make those decisions (when it comes to gender reassignment).

HearHooves

Did you read Prof Carl Heneghan's paper published in BMJ last year?

Ive linked it already but you seem to be skimming the thread

it concludes:
"There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms and even death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice in children."

blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

DuLANGMondeFOREVER

"is that different from suing?

Yes. It’s a judicial review. Keira and her coapplicants are asking the judge to look at GIDs to see if the law is being properly applied..

www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

There is no compensation in it for Keira or anyone else."

Thank you that is very helpful. Sorry, I didn't realise suing only meant in relation to compensation. It's good to be clear and I wasn't so sorry.

(I wouldn't personally begrudge her if she was but this is actually more powerful.)

A couple of screen shots from women who transitioned young and went on to detransition.