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

As pp have stated. The other things you mention have objective diagnostic criteria. And they are done to reduce harm.

None of them are done to healthy people to help them align with an internal view of themselves.

No apology necessary DuLang - I find this whole situation incredibly frustrating and the phrase “puberty blockers” and talk of “pauses” beyond disturbing.

Perhaps “sterilisers” is a better term.

There have been very brave women speaking out about this issue for decades now. Nobody listens. The fact that this information is out there, roundly ignored by the medical community, and then it’s decided that it’s a brilliant idea to give them to children* while pretending they’re completely reversible is almost beyond belief.

(*Precocious puberty is a different situation since it does only delay natural puberty until the appropriate age)

R0wantrees

Then why can't you answer it?

I'm not necessarily against the judicial review if it focuses on "should treatment of gender dysphoria be postponed until at least 25 years of age".

I am against it if it focuses, as this thread has, on "16 - 20 year olds aren't mature enough to be able to consent to irreversible medical treatment" because there will be serious unintended consequences as a result.

Drs will start to become wary about doing procedures on minors, off label drugs will be witheld, will Gilluck competency come under question again? Who will be safeguarding against any of these happening?

Sorry my last post should have said 'everything else is temporary or attempts can be made at reversal (with varying degrees of success).

Here's Keira Bell's description of her experience. Most people have no idea doctors are enabling this. The attempts to distract from this by wittering about 'right wing' blah blah blah are transparent. And frankly contemptible. Why have the numbers of young girls presenting at Tavistock skyrocketed from 40 in 2009 to 1806 in 2018? What is going on?

But Ms Bell said she found her experience at the Tavistock Centre so distressing that she has since decided to de-transition. "It's very difficult because you have to live with the physical changes you've experienced, especially when it comes to things like surgery," she said. "The whole process is really traumatic looking back on it, there's no going back from it really because you are changed forever visibly." Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained

younger can consent to irreversible medical treatment (abortion, amputation, organ transplant, chemotherapy, stoma formation etc etc etc)

Well most of those would be life saving... abortion won't be, but again the overwhelming evidence is that abortion is a better outcome for a young teen who consents than a young teen who doesn't want a baby.

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.

Not at 16 plus it doesn't.

A 16 year old would absolutely have the right to refuse chemo, even if that meant they would die.

Drs will start to become wary about doing procedures on minors, off label drugs will be witheld, will Gilluck competency come under question again? Who will be safeguarding against any of these happening?

Thats some extra-ordinary catastophising on the basis that a Judicial Review has been granted which is informed by support from many medical professsionals whove been working within the service.

HearHooves I dont think you understand Safeguarding frameworks.

It's a really difficult one, but it's hard to hear that young people with mental health issues and/or autism can consent to having their breasts cut off or take drugs that will make them infertile

I do realise that legally they are able to consent though.

A 16 year old would absolutely have the right to refuse chemo, even if that meant they would die

A child with cancer is seriously ill. Your attempt to conflate cancer with adolescent depression to justify life altering treatment in the latter case? It speaks volumes about you.

But Ms Bell said she found her experience at the Tavistock Centre so distressing that she has since decided to de-transition. "It's very difficult because you have to live with the physical changes you've experienced, especially when it comes to things like surgery," she said. "The whole process is really traumatic looking back on it, there's no going back from it really because you are changed forever visibly." Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained"

"Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained"

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras, for me tje most obvious difference is the infertility aspect. We don't give women hysterectomies just because they request them, even if they feel that they've had enough children and certainly never to 16-20 year olds.

It's dangerous to suggest that how we feel can be cured by removing body parts.

I think this is excellent news, if GIDS have no issues with their treatment of young vulnerable people and can prove clinically that they always have the long term best interests of their patients at heart and that every single one of those children has been properly diagnosed, then I can't see any problem.

Really glad that a light is being shone on this it's child abuse to give puberty blockers there's no ethical or moral justification

Here's an excerpt from The Guardian about the matter.

"Her legal team told the high court last month that the clinic’s approach was unlawful because the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained and that children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment. The case could have serious implications for the issue."

No one, regardless of age or competency, could possibly give "informed consent" for life-changing treatment if the potential risks are "not adequately explained".

The fact that the Tavistock treats under-18s means that extra care must be taken.

Who in their right mind could argue against the need to ensure that potential risks are adequately explained and that consent is truly informed consent?

That's what Keira Bell is asking the court to consider.

I understand safeguarding very well thanks rowatrees.

I also understand how Lego medical decisions work and how a legal decision in one area can have a knock on effect in many others.

If the argument to be made is that young people (and in this case Keira was 20 when she had surgery) can't consent to a medical procedure due to immaturity, then I think it is entirely logical to expect that to be applied in other areas of medicine too.

KahlanRahl "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."

What makes you think parents of trans identifying children are OK with any of this?

I've come across quite a few parents of trans identifying children and they are all trying desperately to help and support their kids. Not one has ever made me feel they want all this, they are dealing with what is occurring.

A 16 year old would absolutely have the right to refuse chemo, even if that meant they would die

False.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

When consent can be overruled
If a young person refuses treatment, which may lead to their death or a severe permanent injury, their decision can be overruled by the Court of Protection.This is the legal body that oversees the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The parents of a young person who has refused treatment may consent for them, but it's usually thought best to go through the courts in this situation.

A child with cancer is seriously ill. Your attempt to conflate cancer with adolescent depression to justify life altering treatment in the latter case? It speaks volumes about you.
And the refusal of many posters on here to accept that seeking to remove the right to consent to a medical procedure for 16 - 20 year olds won't have knock on consequences to medical consent in general says a lot about them.

If the argument to be made is that young people (and in this case Keira was 20 when she had surgery) can't consent to a medical procedure due to immaturity, then I think it is entirely logical to expect that to be applied in other areas of medicine too.

I'd imagine the judge would be focussing in the treatment she had at 16, not the end of the process at 20.

And if the judge finds that fully informed consent was not given, for whatever reason, then yes of course that should be extended to other areas.

Or do you think it's a good idea for doctors not to tell 16 year olds the full consequences of their treatments?

A 16 year old would absolutely have the right to refuse chemo, even if that meant they would die

I don’t think this is true. According to the NHS website the courts can intervene in exceptional circumstances i.e if the child might die.

If the argument to be made is that young people (and in this case Keira was 20 when she had surgery) can't consent to a medical procedure due to immaturity, then I think it is entirely logical to expect that to be applied in other areas of medicine too.

I'll try & break it down for your HearHooves:

"Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because:

1)children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and

2)the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained"

HTH

www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday