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

And don't want the courts looking into it in case it affects cancer treatments and transplants...

DuLANGMondeFOREVER

We weren't necessarily talking about life saving treatment though - we were initially talking about chemo, which can be life saving, or it can life extending, or sadly it can be neither.

You said that a parent could over rule a 16 year old who refuses to have it.

That isn't true. The court of protection may over rule but only in specific circumstances.

If the young person is considered to have capacity then they won't be over ruled. And in any case, it won't be the parents who over rule.

I don't think Gillick competence is as simple as alleged. Jehovah's Witness children may be given blood and blood products to save their lives in most cases, despite that being against their faith beliefs, and even if their parents refuse... and even if they are deemed Gillick competent.

It's a balancing act between what is best for a minor, and what they understand, it seems.

The law has been settled now for almost 30 years on minors and blood transfusions, and it seems that this is so, regardless of Gillick competence.

Comparing contraception and abortion to gender transition is apples and oranges. The first two seek to avoid huge and life altering changes to a child's body and future. Transition treatment imposes those changes.

In a sense, whether or not Keira Bell succeeds here is less important than the fact she's sounding the alarm, and raising the profile of what is happening in our name, and with our taxes. To children.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult you've been so fucking failed, and I am so, so sorry.

I don't blame any parents who opt for GIDS, not one little bit. They're loving parents trusting the professionals. Which is exactly what they should be able to do. But right now, I don't believe that they can.

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?

At the very very least I'd like the judge to rule that a clinical psychiatrist takes a lot longer than 3 x 1 hour sessions to determine treatment where that treatment is reliant upon unlicensed drugs and has lifelong consequences. I'd also like the recommendation that a second, senior clinician, from another speciality in the case of these drugs (E.g. an endocrinology) agrees with the treatment protocol after themselves examining the patient, and finally, if those two senior clinicians agree, I'd like the decision to go to an external ethics committee for approval.

wellbehavedwomen

I'm not comparing gender reassignment with anything.

I am asking how people can justify removing the right to consent from 16 - 20 year olds (this woman was 20 when she had surgery) but not understand the potential for wider implications.

Clearly people don't care about the wider implications.

It's not about removing the right to consent.

From The Guardian again:

"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."

It's about making sure that the potential risks are adequately explained and about making sure that consent is truly informed consent.

I am asking how people can justify removing the right to consent from 16 - 20 year olds (this woman was 20 when she had surgery

She was 16 when she embarked upon treatment. That I Hope is the starting point. I wouldn't like to suggest that 20 year olds can not consent. We also have to ask if the consent she gave at 16 was fully informed. I'd suggest she wasn't given chance to be fully informed of the consequences.

Sorry.

...for this type of treatment.

Very important, that last bit.

For this type of treatment.

If a 16 refused chemo because all they had been told was that their hair would fall out would you regard that as being fully informed?

Why does the nhs even pay for people to transition In the first place?

I have a friend who never wanted children. She married a man who felt the same. She approached her GP and asked to be sterilized at 28, then again at 32 and again at 36. Each time told "no, you might regret it"
But they'll do it to a mentally ill 20 year old who thinks they're a man?

That isn't true. The court of protection may over rule but only in specific circumstances.

If the young person is considered to have capacity then they won't be over ruled. And in any case, it won't be the parents who over rule.

What you said was that 16 year olds would be left to die if they refuse consent. That’s just not true.

This is what the NHS website actually says:

————

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.
————————

The whole point of Keira Bell’s judicial review is to find out whether GiDS medical interventions, based on the informed consent of minors, are lawful or not.

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

Screenshot of the NHS website:

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Wider implications would be great, if it would mean a properly rigorous course of investigative therapy before even considering medical treatment. If they're talking about mutilating a healthy young body, then they need to have at least weekly therapy for a year or so to establish whether that's actually what is necessary or wise.

I'm not saying that it's never indicated. I'm saying it should be rare, and should be properly supported and psychological support and investigation prior mandatory. And it should be properly evidence-based.

I'd also point out that a young woman presenting at 20 and saying she never wants children so wants her tubes tied would be told to go home and grow up. There would be no way that would be agreed. The idea we allow huge, dangerous and life altering surgeries on demand and funded by the NHS, solely for psychological reasons, at any age is a non-starter, but at 20? Seriously?

What wider effects are there going to be, in your view? What other condition does the NHS offer this level of intervention for, when the physical implications (and very possible complications) are harmful?

This isn't going to affect Gillick competence at all. It's not challenging the concept; it's challenging whether it's applied, or indeed potentially even applicable, on interventions of this significance on a medical foundation this uncertain.

I call it good news.

The NHS should not be giving life changing treatments to minors without serious consideration even if it is politically popular & fashionable. I hope the case is successful and makes people aware of what has been going on.

I don't understand why anyone would be against a judicial review on something so important. It's very odd to me. Also, these drugs are not just given to 16-20 year olds, they're given to much younger children. When there are big concerns over them then surely anyone would want that looked into, to make sure that we are doing the right thing. We don't just hand out drugs willy nilly and hope for the best.

Clearly people don't care about the wider implications.

The majority of women very much care about the wider implications that trans rights activists have had on children, the NHS, Safeguarding & especially on those girls who like Keira Bell have been harmed.

What you said was that 16 year olds would be left to die if they refuse consent. That’s just not true.

Did I? What I said was that a 16 year old with capacity, would be able to refuse treatment even if that resulted in their death, which is true.

www.economist.com/britain/2020/02/01/a-pushback-against-trans-activism-in-britain

I don't understand why anyone would be against a judicial review on something so important. It's very odd to me

Exactly. This will be an opportunity for everything to be examined in depth. Everyone should be happy that this is happening.

Apologies if it’s been mentioned already, but there’s also a bit in Gillick about influence. Given that many of these young people have been through an extended period of positive affirmation/social transition before being seen by GIDS, the role of influence should be robustly examined in a way that is different most other medical decisions. With social media (reddit, Tumblr etc) pushing transition, organisations like Mermaids pushing transition, schools often affirming, parents affirming and so on, I’d question whether Gillick is being properly used in many of these cases or whether we need something new.

What I said was that a 16 year old with capacity, would be able to refuse treatment even if that resulted in their death, which is true

It's not true though. The courts can step in.

The NHS prescribed unlicensed medicines to a child.

The NHS amputated the breasts of a healthy young woman.

The NHS failed to safeguard the health and wellbeing of a vulnerable child who became a vulnerable adult.

I spent 30 years working for the NHS, I started in the era of Saville and was too young and too junior to do anything about that, but i’m not going to sit idly by and pretend this situation is OK.

I wish Kiera the best of luck.

This isn't going to affect Gillick competence at all. It's not challenging the concept; it's challenging whether it's applied, or indeed potentially even applicable, on interventions of this significance on a medical foundation this uncertain.

I think that there is a danger that it could affect Gillick competence, either directly whereby a group challenge Gillick using this as a precedent or indirectly whereby individual doctors or CCGs bring in protocols governing off label prescribing or consent for minors.

But obviously none of you care to even consider that risk.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult Sending all the support to you and your child.

I can’t imagine the sort of pressure you must feel under to agree to this treatment. I had depression and self harmed as a teenager and I know what effect it had on my mother.

I can only tell you that I believe you’ve prevented a great deal of future pain for your child.

I spent several years with constant suicidal thoughts after my time on a GnRHa. I lost my career, I was housebound, my personality was different, I could barely stand most days, my marriage was severely damaged, I couldn’t stand to be touched let alone have sex, and much of that is still true more than a decade down the line. I wish with everything I have that I could go back and refuse that stuff. It has ruined my life and the longterm effects, like loss of bone density, breast tissue and hair will always be a problem, increasingly so as I age. I absolutely dread menopause.

Your child can still transition or desist if they choose but they don’t have to spend their life with debilitating pain, fatigue and other issues, and with no support from HCPs to try and fix it.

I wish support were better, and I hope things get better for you both. If you or your child ever want to talk about my experience, if you think it would help them understand why you’re refusing, I’m more than happy to help.