For those people who are horrified by the Bell judgment, what part of the judgment itself do you think is in error?
Do you think Gillick competence is not relevant at all in this specific context (puberty blockers used in the context of gender dysphoria rather than precocious puberty) ?
If so, what is it about this specific context which means this?
Or do you think Gillick competence should be irrelevant in all contexts (not just this specific one)?
If Gillick competence is irrelevant (either in all contexts or this specific context) what would you replace it with in that context?
Are you perhaps suggesting that a child’s mental competence to make decisions about say medical treatment in some contexts is utterly irrelevant?
If so how would that work? Are you envisaging all decision making power in that context being given to the child, regardless of competence - so that a child who is not mentally competent would nevertheless be empowered to make binding decisions about treatment? Perhaps on the basis of an age limit - say, anyone aged 11 or over can make binding decisions about medical treatment?
Or are you envisaging that all decisions about a child’s medical treatment in that context should always be removed from the child and made by someone else (who?) - so that for instance that person should always be able to require a child to take puberty blockers even if the child doesn’t want them, regardless of the child’s level of understanding? Or to have a blood transfusion when the child doesn’t want it?
You’re going to have to choose one of these two unattractive options if you reject the applicability of competence tests entirely in some (or all) contexts - which? Empower the child to make all decisions (maybe subject to an age limit), or take decision making powers out of the child’s hands & give them to someone else? (The whole point of a competence test is to avoid having to choose one of these options.)
If you think instead the judgment misinterprets the tests that should be applied to determine Gillick competence, where specifically do you think it has gone wrong?
What do you think the specific tests for demonstrating Gillick competence in this context should be?
What would the implications of these tests be for the other contexts where Gillick competence is applied?
Would these alternative tests also have implications for other areas where an age limit (rather than a competence test) is applied - such as a child’s ability to consent to sexual activity? Or to the age of criminal responsibility?
What do you think the point of competence tests is; and why do we have them in some contexts, and age limits in others?
Saying ‘I hated my male puberty’ doesn’t even begin to answer these questions, and that’s an understatement.