Keira judgement and abortion rights

[Lotsofpots]

Long time lurker, who is hugely grateful for the education received through these boards.
Delighted with today's judgment. But it occurs to me that I struggle to reconcile this with my firm belief that young women have the right to an abortion without the consent of their parents.

Are these things reconcilable? Could this judgement impact on abortion rights?

It just felt disconcerting to see the language I use to defend abortion rights used by those arguing that young people should receive puberty blockers.

A girl of 14 can have a pretty good understanding of the impact of having a baby at 15 and therefore of using contraception or having an abortion. There would be Gillick competency.

Furthermore, a girl considering contraception or abortion must have already be well on her way through puberty not prepubescent like is desired for puberty blockers.

Just to add to all the very sensible posts on this thread, the judge in Keira's case has not done anything to undermine or change Gillick or Fraser principles, which remain good law. There is well established practice for clinicians assessing the capacity of children to consent to medical treatment generally and reproductive health specifically. The judgment is very clearly about the specific concerns around puberty blockers and will not undermine the well established protocols for giving children abortions or contraception, applying Gillick guidelines.

I notice there are still people going on about "wrong puberty" tonight. How is that compatible with the consensus we thought we had achieved that nobody is "born in the wrong body"?

One of my children is part of a medical trial for allergies. They were utterly wonderful at sharing data and outcomes so far, risks etc with us. There were options. There are papers published all over the place. They are ever so careful with measurements and record keeping. It is like they are looking to find out where they've got it wrong because all scientific theory is wrong somewhere, even if just in some edge case.

I find the Tavistock's lack of scientific method to be quite shocking.

This ruling truly is a good outcome for children who present with gender dysphoria. I hope they will now experience differential diagnosis and proper treatment as is normal in other branches of medicine.

This judgment actually supports Gillick competency for abortions - it makes clear that where the treatment is safe, the effects understood, the alternative outcome of no treatment understood, then a child can consent. Abortion would fall into this category, there is zero doubt on that.

Puberty blockers, on the other hand, fulfill none of those conditions.

(*Fraser not Frasier: getting confused with American sitcom: need my bed!)

I find the Tavistock's lack of scientific method to be quite shocking.

The utter fucking uselessness of hospital ethics committees is demonstrated yet again.

Want to conduct some harmless qualitative research- say, asking older people about their experience of physio? Here, fill in this 70 page form, including an equality assessment, DPIA and full details of outcome measures.

Want to give kids off-licence drugs that will permanently remove their fertility and sexual function? Go right ahead. No paperwork required.

@Lotsofpots this blog on WPUK might interest you womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/29/womens-rights-healthcare-and-the-law/

The case stated that Gillick competence wasn't being applied as the law states it should be. It hasn't changed the law.

The case stated that the treatment was experimental, there was a lack of evidence for it, that there were serious question marks about how services were being managed, raised the question of harm being done and that there was no age appropriate way to discuss these issues in a way that would allow them to understand the implication.

Its not comparible to an abortion in any way.

[quote PlonitbatPlonit]@Lotsofpots this blog on WPUK might interest you womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/29/womens-rights-healthcare-and-the-law/[/quote]
This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. It articulates what had been niggling away at me.

You don't get the 'wrong' puberty on puberty blockers; you get no puberty at all. The name says it all. The cross sex hormones that almost inevitably follow give some of the secondary sexual characteristics typical of the opposite sex but cannot give an opposite sex puberty as there are no opposite sex genitals for the hormones to stimulate. It's quite simple really.

The scaremongering about abortions for children being the next ban is likely to be yet another attempt to link gender critical thinkers to far right US religious fundamentalists when in fact they are chalk and cheese. I think we can safely ignore that.

If you go with the safeguarding priority of what's in a child's best interests, a pregnant child has been raped by a mature male and her best interests are not likely to be served by being forced to give birth to another child she cannot care for in a process that could damage her immature body. Likewise, safeguarding a child who is unhappy and confused about their sex is not likely to involve experimentally treating them with cancer drugs, sterilising them and denying them sexual maturity in either sex.

Lots of things fall into place when we stop and think about a child's best interests rather than rushing to give them whatever they say they want in the moment. That isn't how we raise children.

Think of your own heart's desire when you were aged 10 or 11. What would you do with it now? How would being granted it have affected your life?