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

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

Really? A 16 year old, judged by drs and the court to have full capacity, will be forced by the courts to undergo treatment that the young person doesn't want and which may have little chance of success?

On what grounds would the courts step in?

Even if the current GIDS actions are deemed unlawful, it wouldn’t necessarily mean no future medical intervention at all, it will mean going before a judge, who will weigh up the evidence and (hopefully) make an objective, outsiders, decision, one that is free of political or religious influence.

It’ll be the same judges who hear other medical cases regarding medical consent.

It’s not that uncommon a scenario, even with adult patients.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-48875822
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leg-amputated-foot-judge-ruling-court-protection-nhs-hospital-gangrene-london-a8681196.html

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.

Of course you're quite right. Nothing should ever be challenged by a set of judges - everyone knows judges are a bit thick and utterly incapable of seeing the wider effects of their judgements.

Such a great post wellbehavedwoman

Truly great

On what grounds would the courts step in?

In exceptional circumstances. i.e. to prevent death.

Did you not read the link?

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

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

Yabu, the NHS, healthcare providers have a duty of care to all patients, esp minors. There needs to be a government level response to gender transitioning where the rules are tightened. Currently it's the wild west where life changing medical decisions are made with a scant evidence base.

• No medical transitioning should occur at all until the age of 18, maybe the result is more convincing if done earlier but informed consent should take precedence of this.

• No person should be able to transition until they have had extensive counselling and have lived as their desired sex for a certain number of years. Decision to transition should be signed off by a health professional to say that the desire to transition is not due to a mental health condition and that the person completely understands the procedure and the permanent changes made.

• On transitioning a form should be signed to say that they lose their right to sue the NHS a nd if they wish to transition back this will not be covered by the nhs.

Let's hope this case is a wake up call but I doubt it will be. Many more lives will be ruined at the altar of wokeness.

January 2020 Standpoint article by Helen Joyce
'Speaking up for female eunuchs
The woes of “detransitioners” are a warning: treating children with gender dysphoria is riskier than zealots admit'

(extract)
"The Tavistock’s move towards the Dutch protocol prompted alarm. 35 clinicians left. One of them, Kirsty
Entwistle, who worked at a satellite clinic in Leeds, was in the audience in Manchester: “I knew there would be detransitioners,” she says, “but I thought it would be in 10 years’ time when the reality of infertility set in.” Last July she wrote an open letter, strenuously disputed by the Tavistock, describing a culture of fear, with clinicians staying silent about the lack of evidence underpinning the approach for fear of being labelled “transphobic”. Standard medical practice has been abandoned under pressure from trans activists, the Manchester panellists said. No one is tracking children who have transitioned to see if they grow up healthy and happy—or if they end up regretting what they have done.

“I regret it all,” says a slight 23-year-old in a lumberjack shirt, hunched behind a microphone. She is one of eight young detransitioners from several European countries here in Manchester. All are lesbian. They, and many in the audience, see the doctors and clinicians who supported their transitions as the post-modernist version of those who sought to turn gay people straight —only now they are seeking to fix bodies rather than sexual desires. “Transition has been presented as so progressive, but the only thing I see is it reinforcing gender stereotypes,” says one." (continues)

standpointmag.co.uk/issues/february-2020/speaking-up-for-female-eunuchs/

A court wont necessarily insist a 16 year old accepts treatment, even if it does mean death. There are circumstances when refusing treatment is perfectly reasonable, even if it does shorten your life. When treatment is unlikely to succeed and damages the quality of your remaining life, it is quite sensible to say "enough is enough". Even at 16.

Of course you're quite right. Nothing should ever be challenged by a set of judges - everyone knows judges are a bit thick and utterly incapable of seeing the wider effects of their judgements. hmm

Not at all what I said.

All I've said is that I hope the review isn't based on the argument that 16 - 20 year olds aren't mature enough to give consent (which is the argument being used here) because I don't see how anyone can avoid that being widened out.

A review on whether this is an appropriate treatment or whether the speed of treatment is right is of course welcome.

Yes I read the link.

The exceptional circumstances are that the young person is not considered to have capacity.

A review on whether this is an appropriate treatment or whether the speed of treatment is right is of course welcome.

Agreed - quite why you seem to argue review this isn't welcome I'm not certain.

All I've said is that I hope the review isn't based on the argument that 16 - 20 year olds aren't mature enough to give consent

I'm sure the judges will consider very carefully what areas the review should focus on. Do you really think they wouldn't?

If the NHS had denied her they would have been sued for being transphobic!

Porcupineinwaiting

Thank you

The exceptional circumstances are that the young person is not considered to have capacity.

Given that a pp has shown a situation where an adult's consent was overruled I don't see any reason to suppose that the only circumstance is where the person does not have capacity.

All I've said is that I hope the review isn't based on the argument that 16 - 20 year olds aren't mature enough to give consent (which is the argument being used here) because I don't see how anyone can avoid that being widened out.

A review on whether this is an appropriate treatment or whether the speed of treatment is right is of course welcome.

The basis for the Judicial Review has been explained:

"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"

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.”

In England a child is someone who has yet to reach their 18th birthday.

Agreed - quite why you seem to argue review this isn't welcome I'm not certain.

Well I haven't argued that at all. I've argued that some of the grounds cited on this thread are wrong and would have wider implications.

With regards to Gillick competence, what happens if the young person has been misdiagnosed ?

Excellent overview on what ‘Competent minors’ can and cannot consent to/refuse consent for.

TLDR: day to day medical, surgical and dental, up to them, anything unusual or life threatening, not up to them, but decided by a judge.

www.uhs.nhs.uk/HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Children-refusing-treatment.aspx

Quote:
‘ The first and paramount consideration (of the court) is the wellbeing, welfare or interests (of the minor) and I regard it as self-evident that this involves giving them the maximum degree of decision-making which is prudent. Prudence does not involve avoiding all risk, but it does involve avoiding risks which, if they eventuate, may have irreparable consequence or which are disproportionate to the benefits which would accrue from taking them ’.’

Italics are mine.

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

But Gillick isn't at risk - you keep being told that and keep refusing to accept that no such risk exists, for reasons best known to yourself. How can it be jeopardised by one case, when it's been integral to so many, for so long? It's a fundamental legal concept by now because it's so useful - one case won't overturn that, when no others dealing with similar concepts have.

As I pointed out, complete with link to the case in question, even where Gillick competence is deemed present it can also be insufficient for the gravity of the decision at hand. Gillick isn't under threat. It's already reasonably flexible in application in terms of balancing risks, costs and rights.

The only issues addressed will be whether fully informed consent from those with capacity to give it is present. Surely you agree with that? You must, surely, agree that extensive and serious medical care for children should be wholly ethical?

Gillick is solid. The only reason TRAs presently insist otherwise, is that opposing an investigation into the ethical implications of children's medical care is a harder sell.

It's a Judicial Review, not a witch hunt.

HearHooves
Maybe rather than arguing your points you might go back and read the posts from mothers whose children have been/are affected?

. I've argued that some of the grounds cited on this thread are wrong and would have wider implications.

You've argued that it could mean 20 year olds couldn't consent. You've argued that children might not be given transplants or cancer treatment.

There should just be a blanket ban on the whole thing.

@titchy

This is from that article

Mr Justice Francis ruled the man did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about his treatment.

The man did not have capacity, hence his decision was over ruled.

With regards to Gillick competence, what happens if the young person has been misdiagnosed ?

Interesting question. Obviously the consent wouldn’t be fully ‘informed’ so I would presume it would make it null and void? And the same applies to consenting adults?

If a life altering treatment was carried out on the basis of the wrong diagnosis, I would presume it meets the standard for negligence?

Back to google I go!

The exceptional circumstances are that the young person is not considered to have capacity

No the exceptional circumstance is 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

The bit entitled When consent can be overruled