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

Also children can be made ward of courts up to the age of 18 so this is probably a factor in setting this age. It links into the nature of what is happening with children moving seamlessly from PB to hormones with no alternative treatment which might change this dynamic.

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?

From the information on the crowdfunder:
Our lawyer wrote a formal letter to NHS England and GIDS Tavistock, on 11/10/19 requesting that they should cease prescribing hormone blockers to children under the age of 18 years.

One point of clarification: We are not seeking compensation in this case. We are seeking a Judicial Review in an attempt to get a ruling from the court that the current practice at The Tavistock is unlawful.

I don't think that any further information regarding how they intend to challenge the Tavistock policy has been made public yet - although if you are aware that it has, perhaps you could supply a link.

I just came across this site, where the ability of children and adolescents to consent to this treatment is discussed.

www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-consent-transition-gender-dysphoria

I hadn't seen this site before, but it lists Kathleen Stock and Miranda Yardley (amongst others) as 'Advisory Board Members'.

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?

I don't know why you think it will affect consent for other treatment. It's a judicial review challenging whether the current practice at the Tavistock is lawful.

I think they are also prescribed to deal with hormonal imbalances when the body struggles to regulate with the testosterone. I'm sure I saw a video on you tube from a transmen who's body was still producing too much oestrogen and overriding the testosterone. Or something. They were trying to avoid having to have a hysterectomy. This might also explain the age

rogd I agree the wording of that leaflet is really bad. Given the mixed up way people (including the NHS) use the term gender when they mean sex makes it more confusing. ‘Gender affirming’ is very woolly isn’t it. Clear language is so important, I remember a few years back a campaign to reduce medical jargon....then you get sugar coated leaflets like this

I don't know why you think it will affect consent for other treatment. It's a judicial review challenging whether the current practice at the Tavistock is lawful.

Because the age for consent for medical treatment is 16 in the UK.

How can we have a legal age of consent to medical treatment of 16, apart from this treatment which should be 18? If this is successful what stops someone else arguing that it's set a precedent and say an under 18 can't consent to abortion?

If its only seeking to ban under 18s from consenting then what of those whose parents consent for them? Why is the case trying to prevent under 18s from consenting - why not trying to stop the use of PBs if that is what the issue is?

I don't see how stopping under 18s from giving consent achieves anything. I'm assuming you aren't saying that PBs are harmful unless a parent gives consent on the child's behalf so what good does preventing an under 18 from consenting to treatment do for all of those whose parents are on board and will give their consent?

Because the age for consent for medical treatment is 16 in the UK

That is not correct. There is no set age of consent for medical treatment in the UK.

In most cases, people aged 16 and over are presumed to have capacity to consent. Children under 16 must be assessed on an individual basis, and can consent if they have sufficient understanding of the treatment (as discussed earlier in this thread, the threshold for understanding can be pretty basic). There is no lower limit on the age at which a child can consent, if her understanding of the treatment is adequate. The only current exception is clinical trials. This case is seeking to make PBs a second exception, which would be ground-breaking.

Because the age for consent for medical treatment is 16 in the UK

No its not.

(4)A person under the age of 16 years shall have legal capacity to consent on his own behalf to any surgical, medical or dental procedure or treatment where, in the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner attending him, he is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991

Why is the case trying to prevent under 18s from consenting - why not trying to stop the use of PBs if that is what the issue is?

I've already asked you to post a link if you have evidence that this is what they intend to do. It's not what they say on the crowdfunder. Read what I quoted from there earlier.

Why is the case trying to prevent under 18s from consenting - why not trying to stop the use of PBs if that is what the issue is?

Some more information from the crowdfunder to answer this question:

We need your support to bring this test case that will ask the courts to establish that children cannot give their informed consent to radical experimental medical treatment. The harm they might suffer could have lifelong consequences. We have brought together an expert legal team and we have now written to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and NHS England to ask them to stop this experimental and potentially harmful treatment. We ask you to give whatever you can to help us bring this test case.

They want the Tavistock to stop offering the treatment to under-18s because they argue that informed consent for this treatment is not possible for people of that age. So they are actually doing what you suggest they should be doing.

I've already asked you to post a link if you have evidence that this is what they intend to do

It's what the op says

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.

IM0GEN

When I said age of consent is 16 what I meant was that once a person is 16 they can legally consent to medical treatment in their own right. I realise that children under 16 may be able to consent but everyone over 16 can, except in very specific circumstances.

We need your support to bring this test case that will ask the courts to establish that children cannot give their informed consent to radical experimental medical treatment.

But surely a parent could consent on the child's behalf? A 5 year old can't consent to medical treatment - the parent does. So, by them saying that children can't consent to this how will it stop parents from consenting?

Why is the case trying to prevent under 18s from consenting - why not trying to stop the use of PBs if that is what the issue is?

They're not. This is what they're doing:

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.

They want to stop puberty blockers being offered to under 18s because they can't give informed consent to treatment which has such extreme consequences.

So, by them saying that children can't consent to this how will it stop parents from consenting?

If it is found that the treatment shouldn't be offered to children, then there will be no treatment to consent to.

Looks like the papers were filed today...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51033911

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.

This statement you quote clearly says under 18s can't consent to puberty blockers. yet you are interpreting that as They want to stop puberty blockers being offered to under 18s

They aren't one and the same thing are they? If under 18s can't consent to a treatment then their parents can consent on their behalf. Saying under 18s can't consent isn't the same as saying a treatment won't be available to under 18s. It could still be available but if the patient is under 18 then a parent needs to consent to treatment - and I don't see how that can be argued for given that over 16 year olds legally consent to their own treatment?

Children can be made a ward of court up to the age of 18. This is most often seen in children refusing lifesaving treatment on the grounds that they don't have the capacity to make that decision. This is the mirror image of that, are PBs a treatment of such magnitude and consequence that a 17 year old can't be considered able to consent.

Our favourite Dr Is not happy. His powers of extrapolation are verging on hysterical.

twitter.com/adrianharrop/status/1213825410791809025?s=21

Oh the gift that keeps on giving Fanny - Harrop is spinning so much he must be nauseous, I know I am...

Jeez that guy is his own one person propaganda machine:

It’s not a tiny number, it’s 247 at the Tavistock alone, so who knows around the whole country and worldwide.

By “protect their sexual and reproductive health” he means girls being allowed access to the pill. But puberty blockers completely destroy sexual and reproductive health when followed up with cross sex hormones. He can’t not know this.

Imposing restrictions on trans people for no valid or well-evidenced reason? How about imposing long term drugs and medicalisation of a healthy body for no valid or well-evidenced reason? Restricting trans rights or protecting kids from an ideologically driven treatment that can only result in significant physical irreversible changes to a body?

And finally, it’s not about stopping children accessing drugs. It’s about having a safeguarding strategy in place, with the courts involved to make sure they have the right capacity. If the child has adequate agency or capacity then it will all be fine? Does Adrian think those without agency or capacity should be subject to treatments they don’t fully understand?

He clearly has no understanding of paediatric medicine and adolescents. Once again, the ideology is more important.

Good to see a more balanced article than your usual right-wing rubbish.
inews.co.uk/news/puberty-blockers-legal-case-experts-transgender-1361915

By balanced, do you mean full of errors and bias?

I find it very sad that people seem to think wanting to provide the best possible healthcare to children with identity issues is a “right wing” or “left wing” issue.

Oh dear Lord, that inews article extensively quotes Peter Dunne, he who compared women who have had mastectomies to TW in shared spaces and whose paper has been used by the Scottish Govt as validation for self id: twitter.com/alessandraaster/status/1214558771021697026?s=21

Heather Brunskell-Evans has written a piece on her views of Gillick and how it is applied by GIDS:

twitter.com/bmj_srh/status/1215555139119013890?s=21

Oh just no. This case fuck all to do with eroding girls or young women’s access to abortion or contraception.
It has everything to do with trying to safeguard children from politicised healthcare that can prevent them reaching normal adult mental and sexual maturity and give them permanent lifelong side effects and health risks. none of which children and young people are able to understand fully, or consent to, by any normal standard of consent, including Gillick.