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 nowhere does it include medical intervention.

But there is the precedent, right there. Gillick competency can be waived.

So girls can expect to have boys in their private spaces, even if those boys are deemed incompetent in terms of decision-making. How reassuring.

And of course, the next thing will be if the parents disagree with puberty blockers, they can be over ruled.

Parents, you don't understand. If you don't allow this medication, your child will commit suicide. We can't allow you to precipitate that.

Datun it's terrifying but I can see it happening

But there is the precedent, right there. Gillick competency can be waived.

This would, I think by definition, be used as the basis for a potential challenge to both parents and HCPs.
It would most likely be the basis for a claim against doctors with TRAs supporting the wishes of a child who was not deemed 'Gillick competent.

What is the practical difference between grooming a child to transition and supporting a child with "hostile" parents to make decisions he/she would not normally be deemed competent to make?
Genuinely, where is the line between grooming/MBP/abuse/homophobia and support, if R0wantrees's theory is correct, and TRAs challenge medical and parental decisions to uphold the decision of a child whose decision carries little legal weight in any other situation?
The difference can't be just intent, because intent can't be verified, which is why good intentions don't outweigh safeguarding.
What is the practical difference between the two, so we can distinguish between abusers and helpers? I can't see one.

The policy statement about Gillick Competence & parental wishes is specifically with regards NHS single-sex accomodation eg wards , showers etc.

The implications of this go much deeper, though. Here's the context.

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.

They are doing more than saying that the child should be allowed to decide which sex they are to be placed with. It is to do with the whole 'identity' of the child. The parents no longer have a say about their child changing their name and 'gender', even if the child is not mature enough to understand all the potential implications of doing so.

Socially transitioning a child is a major psychological intervention. NHS rules around consent to treatment quite rightly apply to psychological interventions absolutely as much as to medical ones.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain agreed, and it is treated like it's nothing.
Undercover police officers are recognised to have psychological needs link
But children can just crack on with a whole new identity and that's fine?

I only read the summary FlyingOink but that's a really relevant point. And I too want to understand how what is happening to children is different to plain old 'in plain sight' grooming.

I think it's astonishing how little the people pushing for it understand children and teens psychologically, too. How many kids have the emotional maturity to admit any choice they have made was wrong? Kids can be phenomenally stubborn about not wearing a bloody coat in the cold, partly out of defiance, and partly out of not wanting to admit they have been silly, or look foolish.

How much more is this a danger if they've changed every feature of their identity and told everyone they know?

I mean seriously, this absolutely barking approach to parenting that says everything your kid tells you needs to be treated with utter solemnity and never questioned is what is going to lead to a generation of kids with even more severe mental health issues than the current one. Parents who indulge in it are feckin eejits.

Socially transitioning a child is a major psychological intervention.

And for once there is some research on the effects of social transition on those who desist.

a number of girls indicated that going back to their actual gender role was a troublesome and arduous process. They had often been afraid of getting teased or excluded by their classmates if they would revert to their original gender role. One girl even struggled with her feelings to go back to her actual gender role for nearly two years.

More here
www.researchgate.net/profile/Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis/publication/49738851_Desisting_and_persisting_gender_dysphoria_after_childhood_A_qualitative_follow-up_study/links/09e4150655d20a7ec1000000.pdf

Socially transitioning a child is a major psychological intervention. NHS rules around consent to treatment quite rightly apply to psychological interventions absolutely as much as to medical ones.

And this is where the lines are being blurred. On the one hand being transgender is the result of a psychological condition, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And on the other it's a lifestyle choice. An identity that means little except clothing and hair colour.

Gender dysphoria is bloody rare. To mix it up with kids who are gender nonconforming, and allowing them to go against their parents with the possibility of medical intervention is horrendous.

And what about the kind of kids that will use this as leverage. If you don't do what I say, I'm going to transition.

Is it the case that law supports all this actively being put aside as soon as the magic word 'trans' is in play, or is this another case of policy being made up, against the law, which has in most cases been based on the advice and guidance of a political lobby.

I'd say it's more a case of sensible and well established policies being put aside as soon as the words "lawsuit" and "Twitter storm" are in play. Being very cynical, a lot of organizations seem to be simply looking at the potential for being targeted by flying ragemonkeys on social media if they do anything that any trans org doesn't want them to.

And yes, it's bloody ridiculous that this is having any impact at all on organizations that should know better and have stronger spines. I'm sure part of the lobbying they've been subject to has warned them that they will be sued or met with outrage if they don't comply.

On the one hand being transgender is the result of a psychological condition, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And on the other it's a lifestyle choice

I absolutely agree with this. This blurring of the lines is exactly why it has been possible to persuade everyone that the usual protocols don't apply.

but nevertheless. NHS staff have no authority whatsoever to impose even a lifestyle choice that has been forbidden by those with parental responsibility on a child without Gillick competence. They are way out of their lane here.

It's comparable to allowing a child who has been assessed as not understanding the implications of belonging to a particular religion to convert against their parents wishes. It's indefensible.

Sorry not RTFT and IANAL but... a lot of us are parents on this site and we know something of how consent to medical treatment of our kids normally works from practical experience of using the NHS.

This is not how the treatment of children normally works legally is it?- Usually the consent remains with the parents of the (non-competent) child, doesn’t it?

Then if the parents and medical team can’t agree on what the best course of action is for the child (and if the medical treatment is urgently needed and couldn’t wait till the child becomes competent to decide for themselves) then it goes to court.

There is no way that against the parents’ wishes a treatment with major implications of this kind should be given to a child who is not able to consent just on the medical team’s say so.

Surely that is never going to stand up if the parents took it to court?

Ah, but that's why trans groups issue dire hints about the possibility of social services removing children from the parents if the parents are insufficiently cooperative when it comes to medical treatment.

The threat to a court order to enforce treatment is also worrying. But at least it would be legal.

*of

The threat to a court order to enforce treatment is also worrying. But at least it would be legal.
Would it be public though? The court hearing?

Would it be public though? The court hearing?

Ianal but I just asked one. Am told it's a Court of Protection matter so the rules are a bit different than usual. The presumption would be that the ruling wouldn't be made public unless the court specifically decided to publicise it. Rulings would be more likely to be made public if they were about a novel area of law or one that needed clarification. If it then went to the Court of Appeal this would change those presumptions.

re use of Gillick competence by TRAs:

October 2018 ItsAllGoingToBeFine wrote:

'Random thought prompted by Jane Fae: Why doesn't Gillick competency apply to hormone blockers or sexual consent?'
"Fae tweeted this

We could wait until people reach the age of maturity – 18. Or we could trust individuals, as we do when it comes to contraception, and allow them to choose as soon as they are competent to do so, perhaps aged 12 or 13 (Gillick principle) twitter.com/JaneFae/status/1052842729812692992?s=19 as part of a longer thread.

So if a child can ask for and recieve contraception from a doctor (which has side effects and risks like any other medication), why can't the same child ask for and recieve cross sex hormones, puberty blockers.

I have seen this argument made by many different people, that children are perfectly capable of understanding and consenting things that are done to their body medically.

And if a child is judged competent to ask for and recieve these hormone blockers and cross sex hormones (which is a massive life changing decision) why can't this child be deemed to consent to sex?

It does seem to be a rather short hop, skip and jump from medical consent to sexual consent. Once a childmisngiven complete agency over their body in one area, what prevents them from being given complete agency in other areas?

On MN parents are told to "switch off the router", or to not let their child do X, Y, and Z, but when does the child's "rights" override parental preference.

I know this is a bit of an unstructured ramble and I'm sorry - its just I've been thinking about who and what exerts control over a child, who decides what's good for a child, and at what point someone can legitimately step in and say "no, a child can't consent to that"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398095-Random-thought-prompted-by-Jane-Fae-Why-doesnt-Gillick-competency-apply-to-hormone-blockers-or-sexual-consent

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers