NHS say ignore parents even if child is not Gillick competent

[Datun]

It looks like The Telegraph has access to a lot of the FOI results. This can't go on, surely.

NHS staff are being advised to ignore parents’ wishes if they conflict with those of a child who identifies as transgender - even if the child is not considered to have the understanding and intelligence to consent

The policy of Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust states: “Where appropriate the wishes of the parents must be considered, but in the case of young people their preference should prevail.”

Adolescents might prefer to spend most of their day time in mixed areas, but must have access to same gender sleeping area, treatment rooms and sanitary facilities.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/11/nhs-staff-advised-ignore-parents-wishes-children-self-declare/

Is this legal? If the child isn't Gillick competent, and if the state hasn't taken steps to legally assume responsibility, then decisions about care revert to those with parental responsibility. If neither child (because not competent) nor parent (because not involved) has consented to an intervention then how can it be either legal or in line with professional ethics for staff to provide one?

TallulahWaitingInTheRain

That's what I was thinking when I talked about influence. Are they relying on tumblr, YouTube and Instagram to diagnose a kid now?

I think there are 2 issues here (at least!)

1. As datun says, diagnosis of a state that is associated with an incredibly intrusive medical pathway is now apparently being left to children without Gillick competence to do for themselves, with no option of a second opinion

1. The state has apparently ditched the previously universal principle of consent to treatment. That sets a potentially terrifying precedent

2. The state has apparently ditched the previously universal principle of consent to treatment. That sets a potentially terrifying precedent

When I first started to think about the implications of being able to choose your sex, it would never have occurred to me, in a million years, that a paedophile could sue beauticians for not touching his cock.

And I'm not sure I've got the brain space to imagine how lack of consent could play out.

Because my, and I believe most peoples, natural humanity would stay oh well that couldn't happen!

But experience tells me, yes it bloody could. Very quickly.

Wasn't there a push recently by a well known group to abandon the 'sterilisation clause' that protects children from making life threatening decisions?
Is this a work around? I'm thinking in the same way that self ID is being introduced by the back door.

How can this be challenged? The NHS cannot just abandon safeguarding and expect no response.

2. The state has apparently ditched the previously universal principle of consent to treatment. That sets a potentially terrifying precedent

I wonder what role austerity has in this, where pre-existing rules and principles get forgotten under the work mountain and high staff turnover.

Then along comes some shiny eyed clueless newbie convinced of their ability to reinvent the wheel. Convinced that the previous system is retrograde (read not compatible with big business).

So presumably this non Gillick competent child who demands and gets treatment which means they are permanently pre-pubescent is now also deemed competent to consent to other things such as sex with adults...

But experience tells me, yes it bloody could. Very quickly.
I feel like there is no end to where this dystopian nightmare reality-denying ideology and its adherents will take us.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I may come back and comment once I've calmed down.

Just want to say thanks to the Telegraph for covering this, and thanks for sharing.

Those kids deserve the same level of protection that all other kids are offered. What's the justification for them not getting it?

Because gender identity ideologues are so focused on gender identity uber alles that they see any obstacle to that as an attack on gender identity itself - resulting in narcissistic rage reactions - and are therefore blind to necessary protection measures.

To them, safeguarding is trying to stop children "being trans" rather than trying to protect them - whether they are trans or not - from infiltrating abusers, cowboy medics, or, indeed, from themselves or their lobbying activists as minors without capacity. So they end up placing the very kids they are advocating for at risk.

It's an "I identify as good therefore safeguarding does not apply to me" mindset.

I wonder what role austerity has in this, where pre-existing rules and principles get forgotten under the work mountain and high staff turnover.

A big role. We rely on stable institutions and institutions are not stable when they are a) hollowed out by austerity, and b) subject to market forces via contracting out.

(This is the Lisa Muggeridge thesis.)

I stopped reading when they mentioned "Gillick" competence, a term that's been abandoned for a decade.

If they can't get the name of the legal test / precedent for determining competency to consent correct, not much ope for the rest of the article.

I think Camilla Tominey has been switched on to this for a while. So glad to see this is in the Telegraph. Also thank you Joani Walsh.

This is beyond insanity now. Trans seems to trump ALL other considerations and if organisations like the NHS - whose first principle is 'do no harm' - we are in deep shit.

Spot on itsall that is exactly where this is headed

Here's the NHS's own guidance on Gillick competence and who can consent on behalf of the child in its absence

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

The term Gillick Competent comes from Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust itself, Fix. They are the ones using it.

From the article:

The policy of Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust states: “Where appropriate the wishes of the parents must be considered, but in the case of young people their preference should prevail.” It adds: “In some instances, parents or those with parental responsibility may have a view that is not consistent with the child’s view. If possible, the child’s preference should prevail even if the child is not Gillick competent.”

FixTheBone
Re: Gillick -
You can refer to this document from the CQC also, if you wish. Last updated October 2018. Credited to Nigel Sparrow: Senior National GP Advisor and Responsible Officer:
www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/gps/nigels-surgery-8-gillick-competency-fraser-guidelines

Gillick competence is concerned with determining a child’s capacity to consent. Fraser guidelines, on the other hand, are used specifically to decide if a child can consent to contraceptive or sexual health advice and treatment. By confusing them, we lose crucial details necessary for obtaining consent. This mythbuster clarifies the principles, laws and guidelines used when we assess children’s ability to make decisions about their treatment, as well as the differences between Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines.

Age of consent

In law, a person's 18th birthday draws the line between childhood and adulthood (Children Act 1989 s105) - so in health care matters, an 18 year old enjoys as much autonomy as any other adult. To a more limited extent, 16 and 17 year-olds can also take medical decisions independently of their parents. The right of younger children to provide independent consent is proportionate to their competence - a child's age alone is clearly an unreliable predictor of his or her competence to make decisions.

Gillick competence

Victoria Gillick challenged Department of Health guidance which enabled doctors to provide contraceptive advice and treatment to girls under 16 without their parents knowing. In 1983 the judgement from this case laid out criteria for establishing whether a child under has the capacity to provide consent to treatment; the so-called ‘Gillick test’. It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

If a child passes the Gillick test, he or she is considered ‘Gillick competent’ to consent to that medical treatment or intervention. However, as with adults, this consent is only valid if given voluntarily and not under undue influence or pressure by anyone else. Additionally, a child may have the capacity to consent to some treatments but not others. The understanding required for different interventions will vary, and capacity can also fluctuate such as in certain mental health conditions. Therefore each individual decision requires assessment of Gillick competence.

If a child does not pass the Gillick test, then the consent of a person with parental responsibility (or sometimes the courts) is needed in order to proceed with treatment.

So trans kids are routinely stripped of safeguarding protections that other children enjoy. Why aren't TRAs up in arms about this?

They should be. Reinstating those protections should be a no brainer.

This policy is one of the clearest examples of something being written by someone who hasn't any experience of Safeguarding or any understanding of the issues.

In short it says that a child whom the law and Drs would say are not of an aga or capability to make decisions about their own healthcare should be accorded their wish over the decisions of their parents /carers who have parental responsibility.

Its batshit bonkers.

It has likely not being used (as yet)

However, the policy exists, Hosptital Trusts and HCPs would have to deal with it in the event of a situation arising.

The questions should be who has written it, who would be advising such a child and why.

So trans kids are routinely stripped of safeguarding protections that other children enjoy. Why aren't TRAs up in arms about this?

TRA groups and individuals have created and/or influenced these policies.

What is clear is that they do not understand Safeguarding.

It is a systemic failure.

There are a number of situations when some TRA individuals and groups are referencing Gillick competency.

This should be viewed as a potential 'red flag' every time.

In Scotland, there is something else happening. I can't recall the details, but it is to do with an alternative adult being nominated instead of those who hold parental responsibility when there is conflict.

It seemed to also present a potentially serious loophole in safeguarding children who identify as transgender.

It’s like the Cleveland scandal all over again

And the Orkney Island ‘satanic abuse’ fiasco.

important thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc

Trans activists such as Tara Hewitt have influenced NHS policies and social care policies.

Looked After Children are amongst the most vulnerable in our society, those who identify as transgender are being made even more so when Safeguarding policies intended to protect them are damaged.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3324578-Vunerabilities-of-Looked-After-Children-Social-Work-CP-restricted-by-affirmation-requirement-Trans-Youth-in-Care-Toolkit

UHSM (University Hospital South Manchester) transgender policy was written by Tara Hewitt when she was their Diversity lead:
5.4.3.(vi) Gender variant children and young people should be accorded the same respect for their self-defined gender as are Trans adults, regardless of their genital sex. There is no segregation, as is often the case with children, there may be no requirement to treat a young gender variant person any differently from other children and young people. Where segregation is deemed necessary, then it should be in accordance with the dress, preferred name and/or stated gender identity of the child or young person. In some instances, parents or those with parental responsibility may have a view that is not consistent with the child’s view. If possible, the child’s preference should prevail even if the child is not Gillick
competent.

In Scotland, there is something else happening. I can't recall the details, but it is to do with an alternative adult being nominated instead of those who hold parental responsibility when there is conflict.

Is it that Named Person scheme?