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/

Yes but it was delayed and I’ve not heard it mentioned for ages - not sure if it’s still going ahead (am in Scotland)

heresyandwitchcraft
I think so, I remember reading a bit about it and had concerns.

I don't know that much about the Named Person scheme but have done a quick MN search for some links if that's helpful at all.

This thread is a bit older, but seems to discuss problems in general with the idea:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/2600454-Guardians-for-all-children

On this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3428923-In-10-years-well-ask-how-we-allowed-the-trans-lobby-to-hijack-childhood
breastfeedingclownfish writes:
That's exactly what will happen in Scotland if they pass the Named Person legislation and Self ID legislation. Some of the councils even stated as much in their submissions to the Scottish Government Self ID consultation.

On this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3393916-Opinion-poll-reveals-backlash-over-trans-rights-in-Scotland
howonearthdidwegethere writes:
I discovered the other day that Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People submitted evidence to the Scottish Govt's GRA consultation pushing for children aged 12 and above to be able to change their legal sex EVEN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.

From what I've read, there is cause for concern.

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

What is clear is that they do not understand Safeguarding.

I think we're all far too generous. I think they are deliberately undermining safeguarding and until or unless these groups can demonstrate otherwise I think we should assume their intentions are malicious.

Put it this way, if this gets to the front page of the Sun every day next week I want the focus to be on finding out why these changes were even considered, not whether some well-meaning trans org didn't do it's homework.
Isnt that the point of safeguarding? Never assume someone is acting with good intentions?
I would assume the worst and be grateful if it turns out not to be so.

R0wantrees, it appears you and I are on the same page re: who is probably behind writing this shitshow of a policy

I'm going to pipe up with my hobby horse on this one, because the question being repeatedly asked - "Why can't everyone see how retrograde and harmful this is?" - is answered by "Because we are talking about a quasi religion, and the adherents are going to put the preservation of the belief system above other factors, even factors like child protection, unless they are compelled to do so."

Honestly, even things which I consider benign, like core Christian beliefs, are open to this kind of malevolent manipulation, and that's precisely why such disgusting things have happened in the church and why there are now measures in place to stop it.

There are some people, I have no doubt, who are using this mess to engineer access to children. But the reason it has a good chance of success is because of the large amount of well meaning and devout members of Genderism who couldn't even imagine that anyone would use their beliefs as cover for bad things.

Sadly, us religious types are spectacularly naive at times.

the adherents are going to put the preservation of the belief system above other factors, even factors like child protection, unless they are compelled to do so.
Agreed
We should give no weight to any kind of firmly held belief where it contravenes law or existing policy, and we should never make exceptions for it. The French have the right idea with this, but we consider their enforced secularism as unfair. I say this as a religious person, too

There is a gap between what children know solely on their own

And what their parents think or believe

This gap is occupied by outside influences. This is anything from other children (who may be influenced by a third party themselves) or another adult source (primarily through social media).

We Know that this isn't coming from children themselves because a) it's a new phenomenon and b) the desistation rate when medicalisation does not occur.

This is not rocket science.

Why is no one thinking about what this gap is and why its occurring and what it represents?

This goes hand in glove with Rotherham's approach that the girls who were groomed by all those revolting men chose to do it. The parallels are obvious.

Action for Trans Health has also trained lots of NHS staff across the country and wants unlimited access to hormones and blockers at any age. ATH was set up by Jess Bradley and encouraged the assault against Maria MacLachlan www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5187771/Action-Trans-Health-no-gender-birth-certificates.html

I think we're all far too generous. I think they are deliberately undermining safeguarding and until or unless these groups can demonstrate otherwise I think we should assume their intentions are malicious.

I'm afraid this is where I am.

I do not think these groups are negligent. I think they are willfully blind. There maybe a great many reasons for this, but I do not put it down to simple incompetence. It's altogether more sinister and about personal agendas and trying to justify personal decisions with some sort of shield if legitimacy.

We Know that this isn't coming from children themselves because a) it's a new phenomenon and b) the desistation rate when medicalisation does not occur.
And those of us who recognise that we would have been keen transitioners if we had been born later also know it never crossed our minds to pursue a "sex change" even when we knew what one was. I spent a long part of my childhood wishing I had been born a boy, and got quite upset about it, but it never occurred to me to medicalise my unhappiness. For that I'm incredibly grateful because: I still have my breasts, and eventually grew to appreciate them; I don't take artificial hormones/anabolic steroids and have to deal with the side effects (such as uterine pain, vaginal atrophy, heart disease, mood swings, acne, baldness, etc), I didn't have to reinvent myself, my name etc (which we gloss over but must be quite difficult, especially for young people discovering who they are), I wasn't limited to a small number (even smaller number) of potential partners who were looking for a short man with no penis, and I can demonstrate every day that a woman can look like me and still be a woman, and still be successful and still be happy and still be attractive. (To some people!)
This goes hand in glove with Rotherham's approach that the girls who were groomed by all those revolting men chose to do it. The parallels are obvious.
And those girls believed that, in many cases. They believed they had agency, that they were girlfriends. They believed some awful things about themselves and the police believed it too. Lots of parallels.

Self examination. So many people involved just never assess their thinking at all. Thats a society-wide problem, but when you are a young child being groomed, or someone in authority wedded to a belief system which totally undermines basic safety, it is what leads to disaster.

And, might I say, it's why "Can't you just be nice?" in this context, is not just naive, it's actually fucking evil.

I think we're all far too generous. I think they are deliberately undermining safeguarding and until or unless these groups can demonstrate otherwise I think we should assume their intentions are malicious.

Yes. I agree. The ideology that these groups are based on is postmodern queer theory which is all about smashing limits and boundaries in a variety of areas.

FloralBunting
Exactly. You wouldn't accept it in other areas.
"Your car has failed it's MOT, the brakes are almost completely worn and could fail at any time, and two of your tyres have bulging sidewalls and could burst."
"Can't you be nice?"
"Oh ok then, carry on picking your neighbour's kids up from school. Best of luck"
Is that really being nice?

This goes hand in glove with Rotherham's approach that the girls who were groomed by all those revolting men chose to do it. The parallels are obvious.

And those girls believed that, in many cases. They believed they had agency, that they were girlfriends. They believed some awful things about themselves and the police believed it too. Lots of parallels.

This. More than one of those girls went to court still considering that their abuser was actually their boyfriend.

Again, this is why proper safeguarding matters.

I think we're all far too generous. I think they are deliberately undermining safeguarding and until or unless these groups can demonstrate otherwise I think we should assume their intentions are malicious.

There will be a small number of genuinely malicious people and a large number of clueless people who think they are doing good. Proper safeguarding procedures will prevent as much infiltration of the former as it is possible to do.

There will be a small number of genuinely malicious people and a large number of clueless people who think they are doing good. Proper safeguarding procedures will prevent as much infiltration of the former as it is possible to do.

This ^^

Also where there are loopholes and damage to Safeguarding frameworks, those preadatory offenders intent causing harm will seek to exploit them.
This will always be the case.

This video on Queer Theory and Paedophilia in which Derrick Jensen talks about prominent queer theorists and their wanting to eradicate age of consent is worth watching.

Discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3355827-Queer-theory-and-what-it-means-in-extremis

My mother is the woman who would always say 'can't you all be nice!?' Being nice was her thing.

Being nice is not being honest. Being less than honest is sometimes harmful because of the number of lies, even white ones, you have to tell to be like that. In the end you lie to yourself to the point you believe it to be true and you have no concept of anything else as you've become so detached from reality.

Just catching up. I can't tell you how delighted I am that the press have got hold of this. It means somebody cares. And somebody gets it.

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.

God only knows how they can consent to any kind of medical intervention with regard to puberty blockers, since there are no long-term studies to inform them of the likely risks.

I now remember Susie Green tweeting approvingly from that WPATH conference about a speaker saying that decisions around transitioning should be assessed by competency rather than age.

So many people coming from so many different angles trying to chip away at safeguarding of children.

So now we’re not only throwing safeguarding out the window, but medical ethics too.

A spokesperson for NHS Improvement said: “As the guidance on mixed sex accommodation makes clear, decisions should be made in the best interests of all patients and based on the circumstances presented to NHS staff.”

This comment seems ill-informed.
The issues with the NHS policies are within their single-sex accomodation (wards, showers etc) when the transgender policies allow people of opposite sex access.

This is not the same as mixed-sex accommodation which has different policies because people of both sexes are present and using the facilities.