Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

That a judge with no background has the say on whether children can now have puberty blockers

A judge will only have a say on whether a child is competent to make their own decision. Judges absolutely do have background on assessing competence - in both adults and children, and in relation to medical decisions.

A judge with no background... so you agree that prescribing things without being fully aware of their long-term effects is dangerous?

The judgement clarifies that those treating children have to prove that they will do no harm

that is an excellent ruling which should be supported by all those who care about children and the vulnerable

In other news Jolyon is seeking advice on whether taking children abroad for treatment will lead to problems for parents.

Good. It's a question that needs to be answered.

stumbledin

Regarding children aged 16 and 17, the summary suggests that court authorisation should be sought before starting PBs in this age group:

1. In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a statutory presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs.

To the poster below who made the age point, the case was specifically about puberty blockers, not transition as a whole. Most people have completed puberty by 17 so it would be pointless prescribing them at that age anyway.

[quote nauticant]A legal academic having a special interest in non-binary identities explains why we haven't understood the decision and why the judge is mistaken in introducing a "new legal principal":

wordpress.aber.ac.uk/law-and-criminology/2020/12/01/bell-v-tavistock-a-quick-explainer/[/quote]
They conclude:

The court also stated that the information provided to patients had been sufficient, however the relevant question was if the provision of information alone can be enough to make a patient Gillick competent. The court stated that this is not the case, and that some children may not be Gillick competent, no matter how much information they are given. Those children will be presumed to be competent when they turn 16. However the court also stated that there may be some cases where doctors may wish to apply to the court for a decision if, in a particular case, someone over the age of 16 does not appear competent. The court also stated that meeting the required level of understanding will be very difficult for a person under 16, which has understandably caused a great deal of concern.

In conclusion: Doctors can continue to prescribe puberty blocking treatment if the patient is Gillick competent. The court found that the patient must understand not only the consequences of puberty blockers, but also the consequences of later, optional treatment which they may choose not to have when the time comes.

I hope this clarifies the core points. There is a lot more that could be discussed in this case, such as the issue of whether puberty blockers are “experimental”, however I hope this quick post is sufficie.

Ignoring one or two digs there, it seems a useful summary?

I'd imagine that the cost of gender jiggery-pockery is going to increase in future, with the-finally!-intervention of the Court.
I'm also worried about the possible championing of sex-reversal ideology by social-workers, with children being removed from families.

If any adult now argues for children and teens to receive puberty blockers considering the NHS could not provide evidence that they were 'totally irreversible' or even safe as far as long term effects are concerned, they have an agenda that is all about them and not about the health and safety of children and teens.

If any adult now argues that receiving puberty blockers does not mean moving on to irreversible cross-sex hormones (that are particularly dangerous to females) with evidence supplied by clinicians, they have an agenda that is all about themselves and not about the health and safety of children and teens.

This judgement means that children and teens will start receiving some intensive mental health care rather than the focus being on affirming only.

This judgement also reflects that FEMALE teenage transition has been ignored by researchers and clinicians as to finding better treatments. That is a vital step. Because the effects of FEMALE transition seems a whole lot different to that of males, but we are seeing many, many males ignore this completely.

Who is Jolyon Maugham's "we"? It had better not be the Good Law Project...

@CrazyPigeonLadyMarried2Trans

The news caused my partner to have a nosebleed and palpitations, recalling all the negative effects on their psyche puberty had on them. That a judge with no background has the say on whether children can now have puberty blockers is no different than the paramedics hired by CAPITA who decide whether my Autism qualifies me for PIP.

How do you think the de-transitioners who were failed by people supposed to protect them feel, now their bodies have been damaged irreversibly for nothing?

Children cannot, and should not, be allowed to consent to things that they don't fully understand. I could tell you that, and I'm not a judge

This is what's known as safeguarding, and it's back in place at long fucking last.

@laudemio

To the poster below who made the age point, the case was specifically about puberty blockers, not transition as a whole. Most people have completed puberty by 17 so it would be pointless prescribing them at that age anyway.

The exact same drugs are used as hormone blockers for adult transition.

(Pro transition website as a source:
genderkit.org.uk/article/gnrh-agonists/ )

The exact same drugs are used as hormone blockers for adult transition.

I saw a trans man on YouTube talking about how their periods were breaking through the cross sex hormones and so they were told to take PB by their gender Gp.

@PronounssheRa

In other news Jolyon is seeking advice on whether taking children abroad for treatment will lead to problems for parents.

He's clearly sorting out a "hand book of how to circumvent this ruling."

Sky news have just reported but spent most time interviewing a trans male who is happy with transition.
So bloody biased.

Those children will be presumed to be competent when they turn 16. However the court also stated that there may be some cases where doctors may wish to apply to the court for a decision if, in a particular case, someone over the age of 16 does not appear competent.

Is that part accurate? My impression was that over-16s would not be presumed competent and that applying to the court for a decision would be an exception, in the case of an exceptionally determined and mature 16 year old who was deemed a suitable candidate for the treatment. But I'm not a legal academic, although I do know the difference between a principal and a principle.

Perhaps it doesn't make much difference in practice, as clinicians will want to legally protect themselves so will presumably err on the side of caution?

The state of the people who oppose this ruling, arguing that puberty is an optional event that it is abusive to allow, and that it's perfectly reasonable to drug children to stop it.

Holy shit.

@ChloeCrocodile

That a judge with no background has the say on whether children can now have puberty blockers

A judge will only have a say on whether a child is competent to make their own decision. Judges absolutely do have background on assessing competence - in both adults and children, and in relation to medical decisions.

Yes.

And it’s a specialist court too, known as The Court of Protection.

www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/court-of-protection

kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/guidance-issued-from-the-court-of-protection-on-applications-relating-to-serious-medical-treatment/

Defaultname I disagree that this is a fair summary:
SOME children may not be Gillick competent no matter how much information given?!
They are clearly saying that few if any children are capable of understanding the ramifications and giving informed consent, no?

@PronounssheRa

In other news Jolyon is seeking advice on whether taking children abroad for treatment will lead to problems for parents.

one bloody hopes so!

This is a great piece from transgender trend who submitted evidence for the case.
Mermaids and stonewall were not permitted to submit evidence

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

Have spent the last couple of hours reading the thread (unfortunately missed the verdict). To Kiera et al

It is possible that the implications are far wider than this case. Our laws are used as precedence in countries such as US, Canada, Australia which will make for interesting responses, to any court actions. What about the case currently in Australia of child being taken into care. Interesting.

Also had thoughts about an impact on schools and how they deal with the social media hype about trans. I'm sort of whirling around but I think the impact of this might be far greater than just this case (which isn't a just, at all .

Mermaids will have to now focus on protecting and caring for young people but that depends on how tarnished their brand will become.

I wonder if the NHS will start to look a little more carefully at safeguarding in general. Our public services seem to be a little light on this subject. Muddled but ya'll will know what I mean

Kiera & team, well done

@CrazyPigeonLadyMarried2Trans

The news caused my partner to have a nosebleed and palpitations, recalling all the negative effects on their psyche puberty had on them. That a judge with no background has the say on whether children can now have puberty blockers is no different than the paramedics hired by CAPITA who decide whether my Autism qualifies me for PIP.

CrazyPigeonLadyMarried2Trans is well named. The judges will have had endless witnesses with expertise in this area. And its notable that Tavi did not put forward a defense as they have no defense. Total failures to keep stats on their patients surely is enough to have them shut down tomorrow? A GP surgery which failed to keep proper medical records what would happen to them???

@LorettasBox

The state of the people who oppose this ruling, arguing that puberty is an optional event that it is abusive to allow, and that it's perfectly reasonable to drug children to stop it.

Holy shit.

So many men