Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Court verdict on puberty blockers won't affect Scottish children

77 replies

theskyispink · 03/12/2020 15:24

The only clinic in Scotland that can prescribe puberty blockers to children who are gender dysphoric will not change its protocols in the wake of a landmark court judgement in England that ruled children under 16 were not mature enough to give informed consent.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/court-verdict-puberty-blockers-wont-affect-scottish-children-3056057

OP posts:
SophocIestheFox · 03/12/2020 16:40

@Babdoc

The SNP are Woke Central, and desperate to do the opposite to England whenever possible. They have been very hostile to their own GC members (Joanna Cherry et al) and I bet they will try to keep it “business as usual” for the pushers of puberty blockers in Scotland. They have sold out to the trans rights activists hook line and sinker. Child safeguarding is a much lesser priority. One can only hope for a similar legal test case in the Scottish courts.
Yep. They are gunning for the title of Wokest Little Country in Europe. It’s this vastly irritating drive the SNP have to be more liberal than the English, more forward looking, like all the nonsense with the “dear transphobes”.

I can’t imagine why a responsible clinic in Scotland would look at what just happened in the High Court and not think there’s anything they have to do in response. Did they not get the fundamental point that the court has said that no child can consent to these medications because nobody is clear on either the benefits or the side effects? Have they spoken to their insurers? Seems bonkers. Perhaps they think it’ll get reversed on appeal, seems a gamble though.

Aesopfable · 03/12/2020 16:43

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 1981)

However, that medical practitioner has just received clear guidance that the court of protection do not consider children 13 and under capable of making this decision, and that 14/15 year olds are unlikely to. It has also been laid out what conditions need to be met in order for then to be considered capable to do so. It would be fool hardy of any doctor (a psychologist doesn’t count) to ignore this.

Over 16 they may have capacity but they still need to give informed consent. The court ruled that 16/17 may not be able to consent. There are other groups of 16 and overs who may also not be able to consent; those with learning disabilities, those with brain injuries, or those with mental illness, I would hope in all these cases where there is doubt about ability to give informed consent that the courts would be consulted.

These cases may not apply directly but they give such a strong indication of what a Scottish court Is likely to decide that I would have thought medical indemnity insurers would insist these decision is followed.

terryleather · 03/12/2020 16:47

Iirc the FTM detransitioner Watson was pretty scathing about the Sandyford and their treatment there...it was in a youtube video interview but I cant remember who with - possibly Benjamin Boyce...?

MichelleofzeResistance · 03/12/2020 16:48

It’s this vastly irritating drive the SNP have to be more liberal than the English, more forward looking,

They're deluding themselves that it's forward looking

It's heavy on early Victorian and heading back through Puritanism to Medieval destruction of the abbeys and enforcing of the One Truth Faith. All they're missing really is Cromwell and Cardinal Wolsey.

And it's not like this time they have any excuse about its all the fault of the insane fat bloke, he's got syphilis.

PearPickingPorky · 03/12/2020 16:48

@GrouchyKiwi

16 is the age of legal adulthood in Scotland, so that does make a difference.
Why, when we're talking about under-16s, predominantly?
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/12/2020 16:49

Having had a brief dig, I don't think the Sandyford does do puberty blockers. They refer on to a paediatric endocrinologist who presumably will do their own assessment?

I couldn't find any guidelines for when and how these referrals happen and whether the endocrinologist is likely to refuse treatment.

SophocIestheFox · 03/12/2020 16:50

True, michelle.

GrouchyKiwi · 03/12/2020 16:53

Pear Sorry, I was referring specifically to the part of the judgement referring to 16- and 17-year-olds.

rogdmum · 03/12/2020 16:56

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Having had a brief dig, I don't think the Sandyford does do puberty blockers. They refer on to a paediatric endocrinologist who presumably will do their own assessment?

I couldn't find any guidelines for when and how these referrals happen and whether the endocrinologist is likely to refuse treatment.

But that’s the same as the Tavi. The Tavi don’t do PBs either. They make their assessment and then refer onto UCLH or Leeds Teaching Hospital.
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/12/2020 17:01

Just reading a 2020 paper by the paediatric endocrinologist in Glasgow who I deduce works with the Sandyford - it's quite a good summary of what he believes the risks and benefits are, and how decisions are made.

www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/actabiomedica/article/view/9244/8552

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/12/2020 17:03

But that’s the same as the Tavi. The Tavi don’t do PBs either. They make their assessment and then refer onto UCLH or Leeds Teaching Hospital.

So who would normally assess ability to consent? I'd assume the endocrinologist would as well, or do they just accept a referral and assume consent has been given?

PearPickingPorky · 03/12/2020 17:04

@GrouchyKiwi

Pear Sorry, I was referring specifically to the part of the judgement referring to 16- and 17-year-olds.
The judgment said that 17 & 18 year olds would be considered Gillick Competent but that they still would be unlikely to be able to consent to this treatment because of its experimental nature and lack of evidence of any benefits, so I think that should also apply in Scotland despite children here being able to vote/marry etc at 16.

They used the example of a distressed 16 year old anorexic girl, saying she couldn't refuse treatment because her illness was making her incapable of making a rational decision (I paraphrase).

rogdmum · 03/12/2020 17:08

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

But that’s the same as the Tavi. The Tavi don’t do PBs either. They make their assessment and then refer onto UCLH or Leeds Teaching Hospital.

So who would normally assess ability to consent? I'd assume the endocrinologist would as well, or do they just accept a referral and assume consent has been given?

Yes, the consent forms are supplied by UCLH or Leeds at the endocrinology dept. I have copied of all of them if anyone is interested. UCLH also had a solicitor present at Keira’s case.
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/12/2020 17:16

Yes, the consent forms are supplied by UCLH or Leeds at the endocrinology dept. I have copied of all of them if anyone is interested. UCLH also had a solicitor present at Keira’s case

Surely it requires more than an ability to fill out a form to determine informed consent?

rogdmum · 03/12/2020 17:20

Yes, there’s more than just filling out a form. I’m just saying that the formal consent is obtained by UCLH or Leeds, not by the Tavi.

GrouchyKiwi · 03/12/2020 17:44

I don't know, Pear. Over 16s are presumed competent to make their own medical decisions, including taking part in medical trials in Scotland. If an individual of that age is not competent then they're supposed to follow provision for adults. I think the only way it could be otherwise is if there was precedence in situations like Jehovah's Witnesses and refusing blood transfusions.

But I am not a lawyer, and DH isn't in this area, so it would take a specialist to unpack it, I think.

ArabellaScott · 03/12/2020 19:08

I don't give a fuck what anyone says, if 4 year olds are being referred, it's because this is being deliberately put in their heads. This is not a normal thing for 4 year olds to be worrying about at all. This is down to the adults around them.

Especially having just read the list of things that qualify for gender dysphoria. Any child who is deeply distressed by their genitalia at age 4 needs urgent safeguarding questions asked.

PearPickingPorky · 03/12/2020 19:28

@GrouchyKiwi

I don't know, Pear. Over 16s are presumed competent to make their own medical decisions, including taking part in medical trials in Scotland. If an individual of that age is not competent then they're supposed to follow provision for adults. I think the only way it could be otherwise is if there was precedence in situations like Jehovah's Witnesses and refusing blood transfusions.

But I am not a lawyer, and DH isn't in this area, so it would take a specialist to unpack it, I think.

But that's the same in England, so I'm not sure why this specific blocker issue would be different in Scotland.

Anyway, sadly, we'll probably find out in the next few years, once some more Scottish children are needlessly harmed.

ArabellaScott · 03/12/2020 19:30

This has been front page news, I expect many parents who had been considering taking their children to the Sandyford will be starting to ask questions and have second thoughts.

PearPickingPorky · 03/12/2020 19:38

Something of potential interest that I was told by someone who transitioned (MtT) about 10 years ago via the Sandyford is that they were sued before, back then, by someone who changed their mind. Which is apparently why they used to be (10+ years ago) so strict with who they let progress through medical transition.

Verysadpants · 04/12/2020 03:14

Sandyford do refer for blockers. Very little psychological support. Grouchykiwi, what parents are thinking is, my child is miserable and desperate, the gender clinic sounds like the sort of place they will get support to work through their issues, and the help they need. My GP thinks they could help. It will be staffed by professionals who will apply evidence based medicine to help my child, stop them self harming, self hating and truanting. Maybe thorough counselling from someone who really gets it. It’s not what happens, but you can’t knock them for supposing it might.

334bu · 04/12/2020 08:26

www.thenational.scot/news/18919508.shona-craven-mens-rants-must-not-drown-child-protection-fears/

Title odd but content about Keira and Sandyford

ThatIsNotMyUsername · 04/12/2020 08:27

They need to show their working out on this one.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 04/12/2020 08:53
That's a surprisingly good piece. Knowing the National I was surprised it wasnt a handwringing piece about the tragedy of suicidal children denied life saving care...
highame · 04/12/2020 12:12

So has Kiera & Mrs A's case brought another chink of light to Scotland?