The sub-heading is worded in a misleading way:
"The experimental nature and potential lifelong consequences of puberty-suppressing medication led judges to conclude that the courts must sanction its use for children suffering gender dysphoria".
Causing a casual reader to conclude that judges MUST sanction its use...
The line about "Social workers, by virtue of the profession, are interested in issues of social justice and welcome diversity and difference." is worrying,too, since, despite what queer-theorists might believe, some differences are not for the better. I think a close eye needs to be kept on social-workers.
Overall, a marvelous article which could have a lot of impact.
I liked Michelle Janas' admission that "The judges considered both evidence presented and case law, and as it is not within my expertise to cover them all, (Marina Wheeler QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/12/04/puberty-blocking-can-a-child-consent gives a neat summary). I will instead restrict myself to medical aspects."
"The safety data here is paramount, as it helps prevent catastrophic unintended consequences of untested medications, as seen in the thalidomide scandal of the 1950s." will open a few eyes.
(The Wheeler piece she cites concludes "On a number of occasions, within its Judgment, the Court expressed its “surprise” at the absence of data necessary to assess the impact and efficacy of the treatment provided. Reading this put me in mind of the recently-published Cumberlege Review, First Do No Harm, into the tragic consequences of three well-intentioned medical interventions. One, the vaginal mesh, was prescribed to women to relieve pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. It helped many but others suffered decades of excruciating pain and life-changing side-effects. This was due in part to the system “flying blind” – relevant data about the impact treatment was not collated so the experience of this patient group was never systematically analysed and acted upon. Innovation in medicine is good, the Review concluded. The desire to relieve suffering is right. But where the effect of treatment is irreversible and profound, caution is necessary to avoid inadvertently causing harm. As I read it, the Court in Bell v Tavistock were conveying a similar message."(.