Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

723 replies

HollyGoLoudly1 · 01/03/2020 12:03

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 01/03/2020 17:30

DuLANGMondeFOREVER

It's not false at all. What age are they defining a young person?

Anyone who doesn't have capacity could have their right to consent over ruled. That isn't specific to young people.

A 16 year old, with capacity, cannot be over ruled by their parents.

ginghamstarfish · 01/03/2020 17:31

FFS, surely this is not a good use of stretched NHS resources in the first place, right or not? There are many people with serious illnesses and disabilities waiting for treatment/surgery. Ridiculous, and she could probably have sued if refused in the first place, as apparently these issues are much more important than treating actual sick people. Why does she not sue her parents/guardians too? Presumably this was not done by her alone. There should be airtight legal contracts to sign in cases such as this, where 'patients' want to have treatment which is not medically necessary, that the person will not sue if they later decide it was a mistake.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 01/03/2020 17:32

Under 18. Gillick competency isn’t automatic.

TedsFederationRep · 01/03/2020 17:32

She's not suing the NHS.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 01/03/2020 17:33

Ridiculous, and she could probably have sued if refused in the first place,

SHE ISN’T SUING ANYONE

Vinosaurus · 01/03/2020 17:35

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned (it's a long thread), but before we start bashing the parents - they didn't necessarily have to give consent for the treatment, from 16 onwards children can consent themselves, and even younger than 16yr olds can consent if they are deemed as Gillick competent.

R0wantrees · 01/03/2020 17:36

from Sunday Times:

Paul Conrathe of Sinclairslaw, the solicitor representing [Keira] Bell, said: “The ruling is a significant step towards establishing protection for vulnerable children from experimental treatment that has lifelong consequences.”

**establishing protection aka Safeguarding

TedsFederationRep · 01/03/2020 17:36

Gillick competency has been mentioned. A lot.

And just to be clear...she isn't suing anyone.

wellbehavedwomen · 01/03/2020 17:36

What do people want the outcome from this JR to be? Stop GIDS from working with young people I presume? So what should happen to those young people? Do you want them to be just left to struggle with no help? What do you propose should take the place of GIDS?

Great question.

Firstly, I absolutely support the existence of GIDS. It should be better funded, so it can do a better job. Right now, according to many former clinicians, it's not doing its job. Which should be to treat gender dysphoria on a case-by-case basis, solely in the interests of each individual patient presenting in front of them. It's being alleged that they are pretty much blindly affirming transition in far, far too many cases. Hence the Judicial Review.

As the mother of two autistic children, I'd like the impact on autistic kids of negotiating a school system that offers them fuck all in the way of decent support examined. I'd like proper, serious therapeutic intervention to support autistic girls - because that's who we are talking about now - through adolescence. The explosion in cases is, in my view, evidence not of gender dysphoria being more prevalent than we realised, but autistic adolescents being horrendously failed. It's rarer for kids not to be failed. 95% of parents taking their Local Authorities to Tribunal to force support win, and given the overwhelming majority of parents can't afford to do that, so their kids have no hope of getting what they need, it gives you some idea of how terrible provision is. Those autistic kids are in the system right now, trying to manage the unmanageable. Throw in adolescence, and you have the perfect storm of shit.

Autism means finding change hard, the process of transition hard, mess and dirt and smell hard, and pain hard (autistic people often suffer more from pain than those who are not autistic). They find social interaction harder and are more likely to be bullied. They are also more likely to be gay, and more likely to be gender non-conforming. Finally, they are more likely to be sexually harassed, assaulted and abused because they don't pick up on red flags as swiftly, and are likelier to be naive and vulnerable. They are also more likely to spend a lot of time online as it favours someone who struggles with non-verbal communication.

So, imagine being a girl who hates change, as she starts to grow breasts. Someone who hates the process of transition, as she enters one of the greatest transitions of our lives. Someone who hates dirt and mess and smell, as she is told she will start periods. Someone who feels pain more acutely, as breasts grow. Someone who is told being gay is disgusting, as she feels attraction to girls. Someone who sees girls engaging in intensive peer socialisation that she can't connect with or share, and which in turn makes her bullied and on the fringes, and longing to connect and belong. Imagine that girl doesn't really notice the grooming that starts to be enforced, instead remaining in comfortable clothes... which in turn makes her more likely to be dismissed by the rest. Imagine being the butt of jokes over that. Then imagine that girl is still subjected to sexual harassment from boys at school (but predicated on how disgustingly unattractive she is) and conversely from creepy men in the street (who just see a vulnerable young girl growing boobs). Imagine that girl spends a huge amount of time online, finding a tribe who accept her and find her likeable and fun, and admire her brains and the things about her that she herself feels pride in. Imagine that she starts to read that not fitting in, not feeling right in her woman's body, not feeling that she fits with the girls and their intensive interest in boys and makeup and peer pecking orders may have a simple answer - one which coincidentally means she's not gay, and attraction to girls is just another piece of the puzzle... because she's trans. Imagine how embraced she feels by this new online community, calling themselves her, 'glitter family' and telling her that her parents will either get it and support her or they are bigots and the problem.

Imagine, then, that this child reaches GIDS. What do you think would be optimal? Therapy that explores what it means to her, being autistic and a woman in a world that is not a friendly one? That supports her exploration and anxieties, and thinks about what her best future could look like? One that affirms her worth and value as a lesbian autistic girl, with everything to reach for - that It Gets Better?

Or would you think she should be affirmed at once, put on puberty blockers with very little therapeutic input, and launched on a lifetime as a professional patient?

Yes, the system is broken. I agree. But if the system for detecting cancer were broken, we wouldn't launch fully half of patients who find a lump, and want aggressive treatment, into a pathway that is extremely likely to end in surgery and chemotherapy. Yet that is, allegedly, what presently happens at GIDS. Assumption that the patients will not revert to the mean, given time... even though all evidence is that they will do just that if properly supported through adolescence.

As a final resort, the availability of gender transition care is really important. Gender dysphoria absolutely does exist in rare cases, and those kids need support and help, including medical help. But that's light years from offering disturbed, traumatised, and/or autistic kids a convenient hook to hang all that feels wrong to them about who their are, their lives, and the very process of adolescence itself, and failing to offer proper, careful, serious levels of therapeutic intervention.

Adolescence is about dysphoria. For everyone. Treat the kids who find that most unbearable, absolutely. But not, in most cases, with a range of powerful drugs, whose long term effects are as yet wholly unknown. Save that for those who, after intensive and careful therapy, will benefit. That triaging via proper investigation is the key here.

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.

As someone who is ADHD, and has an ADHD & ASD daughter, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Methylphenidate is a drug that calms your brain (if you're ADHD - if you're not, it hypes you up, apparently). If you stop taking it, the effects stop. And that is all it does: calms your brain. The comparison is pretty ridiculous, bluntly. The effects of seeking to alter the impact of hormones on human development at a key life stage... there's no statistically very significant drop in IQ for a start. These drugs have huge, lifelong implications. For most, they will be a massive and lifelong solution to a temporary adolescent problem.

ADHD meds have done wonders for me and for my daughter. But would I take them, or allow her to do so, if the effects could be as huge and lifelong as hormone blockers and cross sex hormones? God no. We'd cope without.

You can't get a tattoo or use a sunbed salon in this country until you're 18. Because the risks aren't ones kids can fully calibrate. Abortion is preventing a huge lifetime responsibility when a child is not ready for it, and preventing, in fact, huge medical change and risk. So is contraception. Comparing any of that to transition - which is the diametric opposite, in being a huge and irreversible change - is either worrying, or founded in a lack of understanding in what actually is happening.

Please research. Please, everyone. Look into this. It's not okay. People need to know what the hell is happening. Keira Bell is trying to ensure that they do. Bless her for that.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 01/03/2020 17:37

This is taken from the linked NHS document on consent

People aged 16 or over are entitled to consent to their own treatment. This can only be overruled in exceptional circumstances.

Like adults, young people (aged 16 or 17) are presumed to have sufficient capacity to decide on their own medical treatment, unless there's significant evidence to suggest otherwise.

So a 16 year old would be able to decline life saving treatment unless there was significant evidence to suggest that they lacked capacity, in which case it would be referred to the court of protection.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 01/03/2020 17:38

Treatments done as a medical necessity and where time is critical eg cancer treatments are not equivalent to puberty blockers where there is no strict medical need. So it is a straw man to try to link consent for medically necessary time critical treatment with consent for drug treatment with unknown side effects to deal with gender dysphoria.

DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult · 01/03/2020 17:39

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.

It's not 'woke'. I wish every day my child didn't feel as they do.

I have avoided puberty blockers for my child, however I have had to deal with my child self harming, screaming that they hate me and themselves, lack of any sort of support unless we start going down the medicalised route for them. You have absolutely no idea.

If you have a teen who is feeling suicidal, self harming and depressed and your only option for help is giving them medication that is being touted as 'space to think' by every professional you talk to, then you'll get that its not about being 'woke' it's literally about trying to spare your child all the pain and anguish they are going through.

Its fucking hard not to accept medication in my childs circumstances, I can 100% see why parents accept it.

A light needs to be shone on this, and they need to step up the help without being pushed further down the trans route.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 01/03/2020 17:42

unless there's significant evidence to suggest otherwise.

A 16 year old declining lifesaving treatment WOULD be considered significant evidence to suggest otherwise!

R0wantrees · 01/03/2020 17:45

If you have a teen who is feeling suicidal, self harming and depressed and your only option for help is giving them medication that is being touted as 'space to think' by every professional you talk to, then you'll get that its not about being 'woke' it's literally about trying to spare your child all the pain and anguish they are going through.

Its fucking hard not to accept medication in my childs circumstances, I can 100% see why parents accept it.

Absolutely Flowers

The additional tragedy is that many professionals who have experience working with this level of adolescent distress are being hindered /prevented from working with those children once they are identified as transgender.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 01/03/2020 17:45

DiffPiff

Flowers

Us too. The distress is real. It’s utterly shit for them.
Our DC is the very definition of ROGD, and in fact in coincided with our younger DC’s oncology treatment, suggesting it’s a maladaptive response to trauma, rather than an innate, inborn, gender identity.

Italiangreyhound · 01/03/2020 17:46

DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult thank you for articulating so well. I think many people have no idea.

Thanks
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 01/03/2020 17:46

DifficultPificult
Flowers

It feels like the system is failing more people than it is helping right now. If this JR frees the medical profession to be more cautious and explore more options with a young person before any irreversible steps are taken then that would be a good thing in my view.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 01/03/2020 17:48

ChazsBrilliantAttitude
But not all treatments are time critical or life saving.

Drugs are often prescribed off label for non life threatening conditions. It's very difficult to get ethical approval to study effects of drugs on children, for obvious reasons.

What drugs will become unavailable if the judge here rules that off label or experimental treatments can't be used for children?

Mental health services for children are on their knees in this country so what help will be available to these children if the judicial review is successful?

In truth it will be none won't it?

BovaryX · 01/03/2020 17:49

Treatments done as a medical necessity and where time is critical eg cancer treatments are not equivalent to puberty blockers where there is no strict medical need. So it is a straw man to try to link consent for medically necessary time critical treatment with consent for drug treatment with unknown side effects to deal with gender dysphoria

Absolutely. But it is interesting that cancer is being used in an attempt to distract attention from the fact that the NHS is prescribing life altering drugs to 16 year old girls. There were only 40 girls presenting for gender reassignment in 2009. In 2018 there were 1806. How many will there be in 2026 given this exponential increase? What is going on?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 01/03/2020 17:52

A 16 year old declining lifesaving treatment WOULD be considered significant evidence to suggest otherwise!

Would it? So a 16 year old who could demonstrate that they understand the consequences of refusing treatment and articulate all of the reasons why they don't want it would be considered to be lacking capacity? On what grounds?

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 01/03/2020 17:52

So a 16 year old would be able to decline life saving treatment unless there was significant evidence to suggest that they lacked capacity, in which case it would be referred to the court of protection.

Yes, and declining life saving treatment WOULD indicate that they lacked capacity and a judge would decide. Life saving is the key here. Not life extending, saving. A 16 year old who says they want to be left to die even though treatment is available would be flagged as a mental health referral. The doctors wouldn’t just go ‘oh, ok then’.
People with serious illness often have associated mental health issues. All the kids on my daughter’s oncology ward have psychologists as well as oncologists.

R0wantrees · 01/03/2020 17:53

Absolutely. But it is interesting that cancer is being used in an attempt to distract attention from the fact that the NHS is prescribing life altering drugs to 16 year old girls. There were only 40 girls presenting for gender reassignment in 2009. In 2018 there were 1806. How many will there be in 2026 given this exponential increase? What is going on?

It is interesting to see what is going to be appropriated in order to try to distract from the very important questions about how some very vulnerable girls are better Safeguarded.

JamieVardysHavingAParty · 01/03/2020 17:54

So, imagine being a girl who hates change, as she starts to grow breasts. Someone who hates the process of transition, as she enters one of the greatest transitions of our lives. Someone who hates dirt and mess and smell, as she is told she will start periods. Someone who feels pain more acutely, as breasts grow. Someone who is told being gay is disgusting, as she feels attraction to girls. Someone who sees girls engaging in intensive peer socialisation that she can't connect with or share, and which in turn makes her bullied and on the fringes, and longing to connect and belong. Imagine that girl doesn't really notice the grooming that starts to be enforced, instead remaining in comfortable clothes... which in turn makes her more likely to be dismissed by the rest. Imagine being the butt of jokes over that. Then imagine that girl is still subjected to sexual harassment from boys at school (but predicated on how disgustingly unattractive she is) and conversely from creepy men in the street (who just see a vulnerable young girl growing boobs). Imagine that girl spends a huge amount of time online, finding a tribe who accept her and find her likeable and fun, and admire her brains and the things about her that she herself feels pride in. Imagine that she starts to read that not fitting in, not feeling right in her woman's body, not feeling that she fits with the girls and their intensive interest in boys and makeup and peer pecking orders may have a simple answer - one which coincidentally means she's not gay, and attraction to girls is just another piece of the puzzle... because she's trans. Imagine how embraced she feels by this new online community, calling themselves her, 'glitter family' and telling her that her parents will either get it and support her or they are bigots and the problem.

Amazing post. I thank my lucky stars I went through all that pre-internet, and coped by seeking out feminism books.

BovaryX · 01/03/2020 17:55

What drugs will become unavailable if the judge here rules that off label or experimental treatments can't be used for children?

You think it's appropriate that a 16 year old girl is given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and a breast amputation at 20? You think that after a couple of appointments that is appropriate behaviour by adult doctors in a position of power It is incredibly brave of Keira Bell to highlight this because who knew? Most people would be astonished that this treatment is sacntioned by UK doctors in the 21st century.

FemiLANGul · 01/03/2020 17:55

Wow, there are people actually arguing that maiming children is ok...