High court case on puberty blockers and consent

[bumpertobumper]

This week a case starts in the high court with a mother of a teen and a former gids nurse bringing a case that under 18s can't consent to puberty blockers.
Sorry if there is already a thread on this, had a look and couldn't see one.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/05/high-court-to-decide-if-children-can-consent-to-gender-reassignment?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

The BBC do seem to have removed the 'I am Leo' programme from their website. This is the link to the programme. It now goes to the home page for the 'My Life' series, and I can't see this episode there any more.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/cbbc/episode/b04q1295/my-life-series-6-1-i-am-leo

oldcrone but I wonder how many impressionable children (or parents) have watched it over the last few years...

Kilbranan I just think it's interesting that they have removed it now. I'm sure it was there until recently. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they have removed it now that people are asking more questions about hormone blockers and whether it's appropriate to give them to children.

... has Dr Polly describing the puberty blockers as a breathing space or pause?

It’s the first time I’ve seen that advert, and what struck me was the very simplistic language and message with no mention of risk. I assume that’s because this ad is aimed at children so the language needs to accessible to the target audience.

Yet this very same audience ie children are apparently mature enough to make potentially dangerous and life limiting decisions.

Based on a breathy wink wink twinkle nose soft soap message from a person in authority they’re told they can trust ‘doctor’.

It’s the first time I’ve seen that advert

It's not an advert. It's a clip from a children's TV programme made by the BBC.

It's not an advert. It's a clip from a children's TV programme made by the BBC.

Oh, sorry my mistake OldCrone, the clip I saw read like an ad for puberty blockers.

the clip I saw read like an ad for puberty blockers.

That may be why the BBC have finally taken the programme down. But you can still see it here.
www.transgendertrend.com/uk-cbbc-childrens-tv-i-am-leo/

Link to 'I am Leo' winning award still on Tavi web site. Must be proud of Polly Carmichaels performance
tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/i-am-leo-wins-top-award/

"According to results of a poll hosted on Sermo, a global social platform for physicians, 94% of physicians think that an age minimum is an appropriate benchmark for patients who wish to transition: more than half (62%) of these respondents said that the minimum age should be 21 years, while nearly a third (32%) said that age 18 years would be an appropriate minimum.

On Sermo, one endocrinology physician shared a belief that children and adolescents do not possess the capacity to make informed decisions about fertility or permanent body alterations. “Affirming a child’s false gender identity, instead of providing exploratory counseling to help resolve the dysphoria, is astonishingly negligent.”

Another physician, specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation, agreed. “Children [do not] know enough about themselves to be trusted to make the correct, irreversible decisions, and generally do not have the maturity to handle it. More kids question their gender now due to it being popular socially, or more in the news and social media. We cannot allow them to be potentially permanently harmed for a potentially temporary condition.”"

www.endocrinologyadvisor.com/home/topics/pediatric-endocrinology/medical-guidelines-at-odds-with-public-policy-should-there-be-a-minimum-age-for-gender-transition/2/

But age of consent is 16 so are they saying that 16 - 18 year olds can't consent to any medical treatment at all or just puberty blockers?

Puberty blockers are not the most harmful treatment (or refusal of treatment) that 16 - 18 year olds consent to so how will this case affect them?

Also I would be interested to know how the NHS and private off label use of puberty blockers is being done in line with European medicine Agency recommendations about safety monitoring reporting?

www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-gives-guidance-safety-monitoring-medicines-used-children

www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-good-pharmacovigilance-practices-gvp-product-population-specific-considerations-iv_en-0.pdf

How can safety follow up and reporting, in clinical use or in research, possibly be done if numbers of users who are on that drug aren’t being kept?

Hoping a doctor or lawyer might be along to advise because this seems very concerning.

There are some inclusions in the requirements linked to, that directly relate to reporting around risks to the child’s future reproductive development, skeletal development etc.

Hearhooves at 16, teens on puberty blockers are moved onto cross sex hormones, or rather, they are given the option and almost 100% take it up.

(Puberty blockers are not the most harmful treatment (or refusal of treatment) that 16 - 18 year olds consent to so how will this case affect them?*

What are these other experimental, unregulated treatments that 16-18 year olds consent to, which turn perfectly physically healthy young people into lifelong patients and destroy their fertility and ability to enjoy sexual relationships for the rest of the lives ? For a condition that 90% will grow out of anyway.

I’ve just checked the size of that hole. Amazing!

That clip of Polly Carmichael! I haven't seen it before. And adding fact that transgenderism is taught in schools, using the bloody Barbie/GI Joe model.

And she has the fucking cheek to wonder why referrals have increased exponentially?

rodgmum

Then why does the op state

This week a case starts in the high court with a mother of a teen and a former gids nurse bringing a case that under 18s can't consent to puberty blockers.

Should that be under 16s can't consent then?

IM0GEN

Why do you see that as the only harm that medical treatment or no treatment, could cause?

A 16-18 year old could, for example, choose not to receive a blood transfusion or to have cancer treatment, as can any consenting adult. This may well result in a preventable death. I think that's more harmful than puberty blockers.

Hear I don’t know. If you are referred to GIDS at 16/17, cross sex hormones are what is offered, not puberty blockers (I think they’d be a bit late to be useful, would they not?) - at least at the Scottish one. Maybe the Tavi is different?

*useful in terms of the NHS thinking they are “useful” not me!

A 16-18 year old could, for example, choose not to receive a blood transfusion or to have cancer treatment, as can any consenting adult. This may well result in a preventable death. I think that's more harmful than puberty blockers.

Has the BBC made a programme which encourages children to think that blood transfusions and cancer treatment are harmful and they should refuse them if they are told they need them? Does the NHS have a special clinic where children are told that they should refuse blood transfusions and cancer treatment?

Look at what children are being told. A poster on here thought that a clip from that BBC programme was an advert for puberty blockers. I can see exactly why someone would think that, because that is exactly what an advert for puberty blockers would look like.

Children don't make decisions like this in a vacuum. None of us do, but children are particularly susceptible to believing what they are told by people who seem like helpful, responsible, knowledgeable and qualified adults.

Here’s the initial leaflet that teens who are referred to Sandyford by their GP receive: www.sandyford.org/media/3744/304280_1_1-yp-gender-service-information.pdf

I know Sandyford isn’t the Tavi, and I know the risks should be outlined before any medical treatment is undertaken, but the leaflet doesn’t even hint at what a serious decision medical transition is. IMO, it gives the impression of, “Oh, unhappy with your body? Want to be the opposite gender? We can sort that.” The whole initial jump straight into one pathway without other options horrifies me.

From the Sandyford leaflet:

The effects of puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible. A young person can stop puberty blockers without progressing onto further treatment

Trivial decision to take them then - they're perfectly safe and you can stop any time.

Gender affirming hormones may be prescribed to a young person with gender dysphoria. These hormones help affirm the gender the young person feels is correct for them by changing their body.

Is there any other condition where children are encouraged to change their bodies in order to correspond to some feeling they have about how it should look?

What strikes me about that leaflet is that 'gender' and 'gender identity' are mentioned over and over, and it talks about how a young person might feel distress or uncertainty about their 'gender', but their sex is never mentioned. 'Gender affirming hormones' are given to masculinise or feminise the body, but it is not made clear that the person's sex cannot be changed. How many children start on this treatment thinking that they can change sex?

“Gender-affirming hormones” what the what now? This is where using fucking ridiculous language to obfuscate leads. It is not appropriate to call cross-sex hormones “gender-affirming”. What absolute bollocks. These are hormones which are produced naturally by the opposite sex. When you put, for example, testosterone into a female body you create a large number of difficulties for that female body including atrophy of the sex organs with a side order of excruciating pain. The fact that you also make that female body hairier, with a deeper voice, does not make that female body into a male body. Cross-sex hormones also mean the person taking them must necessarily become a lifelong medical patient. The risks are enormous. And yet...here clinics are, with their fluffy “gender-affirming” hormones. It makes my blood run cold.

OldCrone

My point is that you are allowed to consent to medical treatment at 16 years of age so why is this case seeking to change that to 18 for this situation only? Another poster says that puberty blockers aren't even prescribed for 16 - 18 year olds do is there a mistake in the op? Is the court case challenging them being prescribed to under 16s or is it, in fact for under 18s? If it is for under 18s then what effect could that have on 16 - 18 year olds consenting to any other medical treatment?

What I don’t know is whether, if you are on PBs at 16 but don’t want to go onto cross sex hormones or haven’t yet decided, they will keep you on the PBs until you are discharged from the Tavi at 18? Or is your choice come off PBs at 16 and then go through puberty (or whatever form of it occurs) or go onto cross sex hormones?