Susie Green blathering on about no other medical condition requires a court approval.
Here's what the High Court had to say on that point:
^The condition being treated, GD, has no direct physical manifestation. In contrast, the treatment provided for that condition has direct physical consequences, as the medication is intended to and does prevent the physical changes that would otherwise occur within the body, in particular by stopping the biological and physical development that would otherwise take place at that age. There is also an issue as to whether GD is properly categorised as a psychological condition, as the DSM-5 appears to do, although we recognise there are those who would not wish to see the condition
categorised in that way. Be that as it may, in our judgment for the reasons already identified, the clinical intervention we are concerned with here is different in kind to other treatments or clinical interventions. In other cases, medical treatment is used to remedy, or alleviate the symptoms of, a diagnosed physical or mental condition, and the effects of that treatment are direct and usually apparent. The position in relation to puberty blockers would not seem to reflect that description.^
In other words its unique in not manifesting as a physical problem but seemingly a mental one, but is being treated by doing something physical to a healthy body. This goes directly again the principle of 'do not harm' thus is problematic and does require additional scrutiny.
Imagine if we tried to treat schizophrenia in a patient who was convinced their hand was on fire by chopping off a healthy fully functioning normal hand.
Thats the equivalence and why its problematic.
Add to that the potential influence of homophobia and/or sexual abuse into this dynamic and you have a cocktail of issues which need significant levels of safeguarding in a way other conditions don't merit.
Susie Green's problem is, and always will be, the more this is pointed out and identified the more it also opens her personally to scruntiny and raises questions about how she took her child abroad for experimental treatment.
All she can do is fall back on anecdata. And unfortunately in the absence of evidence due to there being no proper scrutiny of what happens to children subjected to puberty blockers on a long term basis that means this anecdata holds far more weight than it should do.
As more evidence does become available, I think there will be an inevitability about what it shows which isn't very favorable to Susie and many of the parents supplying this bias anecdata which is there to protect their interests primarily and not the interests of their children.
The more this unravels the more exposed and desparate Green will become, because that narrative would leave Green in a position which suggests she personally is responsible for psychological and physical harm to a minor.
This is precisely why Mermaids are opposed to proper research in this area. And you have to ask big questions about why any individual or organisation is just so opposed to evidence based medicine which, ironically, is the gold standard in every other area of healthcare.
Why is it that they seek to be 'treated as any other condition without the need for court intervention' whilst simulataneously wishing to be treated differently from all other areas of health care in terms of medical ethics and evidence based medicine.
The cognitive dissonance should be pointed on and laid bare. They do not want gender dysphoria to be the subject of standards and regulation applicable elsewhere when it doesn't suit their agenda.