Jolyon Maugham, GLP and scary stuff re parental consent

[RealityNotEssentialism]

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/

I know that there is another thread on JM but thought I would start a new one as this has just been released. First of all he has named the people on his advisory committee. They include Alex Sharpe, whom we know all about and about whom no more needs to be said.
Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them. That is chilling and dangerous and puts an awful lot of power in the hands of adults with nobody to protect the child’s interests. JM has lost the plot.

[quote InvisibleDragon]Gillick competent to refuse a heart transplant. Autocorrect gubbins alert.

Here's a link as penance. There's a happy ending - she changed her mind:
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-43110989[/quote]
That is a lovely clip.

The Tavistock procedure of requiring informed consent from the child themselves is highly unusual. I can help wondering whether this is because a surprisingly high number of parents disagree with the proposed treatment

Or have concerns about the competency or motives of the parents.

The child in this case had been refered to the Tavistock www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html.

While whistle-blowers have raised concerns about the motives of other parents, homophobia etc

I am not a lawyer and I'm not a medical professional, so my knowledge of this is not expert. However, as far as I understand, parental consent with child assent is the normal procedure for medical treatment in children.

So Jolyon's wish to make this treatment available with only informed consent from the parents and assent from the child (who is deemed unable to give fully informed consent) would be in line with current arrangements for a child who does not have the maturity to give fully informed consent for other treatments.

If this treatment is viewed as a 'normal' or 'standard' medical treatment, is there a possibility that Jolyon's case could succeed?

The Tavistock procedure of requiring informed consent from the child themselves is highly unusual. I can help wondering whether this is because a surprisingly high number of parents disagree with the proposed treatment.

I thought they required informed consent from both the child and the parent(s). The Tavistock might have been trying to keep the Munchausen by proxy sufferers, homophobes and paedophiles at bay with the requirement of informed consent from the child.

With children now deemed unable to consent, we would need more vigilance from the medical professionals to prevent such parents from inflicting irreversible damage on their children.

The Tavistock procedure of requiring informed consent from the child themselves is highly unusual.

Indeed, but so's the "treatment", as the judges noted. All the usual Gillick etc examples are actual concrete treatments for real serious medical conditions.

This could be viewed as an extreme body alteration justified on psychological/societal/cosmetic grounds. It is a very long way away from a physically life-saving treatment like a blood transfusion.

I think the Tavistock knows that mere "assent" doesn't cut it for something like this. They don't want to be facing that ethics panel.

We wouldn't allow mere "assent" rather than "consent" from children in many instances.

The Tavistock procedure of requiring informed consent from the child themselves is highly unusual. I can help wondering whether this is because a surprisingly high number of parents disagree with the proposed treatment.

I don’t think it’s that unusual actually. PB can’t be compared to something like having a tooth pulled out or an operation because those treatments will usually bring about a notable improvement in the child’s health whereas PBs don’t. The latest from the Tavistock’s own research shows PB don’t improve mental health. So PB is more like having cosmetic surgery or sterilisation. No parent can consent to a boob job for their 13 year old for instance. Therefore I am not surprised that the Tavistock require the actual patient to consent to the treatment.

Also, if the parents are the ones consenting, there will be some interesting lawsuits by children against parents in a few years.

Presumably if it is being suggested that an expert clinician can recommend the medicalised route so the parents and child can consent/assent, they would need to have a clear and rigorous diagnostic procedure designed to ensure the instances of misdiagnosis are zero.

There would be huge outcry if doctors in any other area of medicine misdiagnosed numbers of patients so why would this be any different? Again, people with vested interests advocating for substandard care for these children.

OldCrone yes- loads of children have surgery/ treatments all the time that they are too young to give informed consent for.

It's on the basis of harm v risk. So a small child can't give informed consent to something like a brain tumour being removed. Where the surgery might kill them or render them permanently disabled. The family sit down and the expert lays out the facts. There's some thinking. Depending on the age of the child their assent would be sought. I mean obviously not a baby for example. So yes parents can and do consent on behalf of children. And if the child is old enough their assent is sought. If they don't give it I imagine what happened next would depend on their age etc. In some cases parents would be consenting for adults eg if their child has severe learning difficulties.

I say this not from an expert medical or law place but what is my experience years ago and also what is just obviously the way it is.

The hiking onto

Contraception and abortion
And
Going on about it being life saving (one person on that Twitter thread said trans kids commit suicide all the time, it's just not true)

Is just. I mean they are leveraging the health and wellbeing of girls. And also telling outright lies which even if they were true shouldn't be chucked around like that (Samaritans)
To get what they want

It's completely mind boggling.

The proponents of this really don't care what consequences are as long as they get what they want.

And I think a lot of them genuinely believe they're doing the right thing :/

@NiceGerbil

The other thing though is that it seems to serve mtf better? By preventing growing in height, voice breaking, beard etc. Which are not really mitigated through cross sex hormones.

The age seems more for m2f as well. Talk of 11 or 13.

My girls started puberty 8.5. Girls do start earlier. So the ages mentioned are too late for female children

Also. If you block female puberty and then give male hormones does that result in a lot of height growth? I have no idea. I know the voice deepens and beard comes in. Not if you growth upwards has been stopped at 9 for eg you're going to be a very short adult man.

I think there is bias here as well in looking primarily at outcomes for mtf.

I totally agree. Women who transition by taking testosterone tend to get a more realistic result than adult men. It’s quite rare for a man to be able to truly pass for female. I think the ones who are frustrated that they can’t look or sound as female as they’d like (Alex Sharpe for one) are projecting their feelings onto children without capacity to consent. The thing is that even if a more realistic result is reached by blocking puberty before taking CSH, it still won’t be the same. As most kids with GD would have desisted anyway, that will probably still happen but now they will be trapped in a body that looks somewhat female but isn’t really. I can’t imagine how hellish that would be.

I watched a docu about an Australian boy who was convinced he was trans. His mum gave him her HRT tablets (I know, wtf) and he developed breasts and his growth slowed. He then desisted and is stuck with breasts and permanently altered bone structure. He’s seeking surgery to remove the breasts but nothing can be done about the bones. It’s heartbreaking. It’s always better for a trans adult to get a less realistic result than they ideally want (what they want is usually a fantasy anyway) than for any child to undergo a medical transition that they later regret. Always.

Invisibledragon it sounds to me like they are aiming towards a judicial review of the Tavistock policy to require the child's informed consent (and not the parent's) on that basis. Bringing it on line with other medical interventions.

If you believe that there's a high risk of suicide without puberty blockers, then you could view it as similar to parents giving consent to risky treatments to illnesses which would cause death without treatment. It's why they whip up the suicide claims so constantly. The Tavistock's evidence doesn't support the suicide risk claims that are made, but there are other studies which trans rights advocates point to. Will this force the NHS to argue in court against the suicide claims?

Bringing it all into public view to be scrutinised by judges will be good whatever the motives.

The point is that the body is fine. There is nothing wrong with it.

So it's completely different to eg removing a brain tumor. Or for abortion/ contraception you are preventing or stopping something that would cause massive change/ danger. An abortion is way safer than giving birth. Even without all the other stuff.

This is a psychological issue. I'm sure it's keenly felt for some people who can and do access hormones etc which is aok as adults (NHS funding issues notwithstanding).

So it seems all of the incorrect suicide stuff, and the wrong body stuff, was to position these interventions as a life saving treatment like for cancer or similar?

And the the threat is. If you don't let us do this we'll work to take away abortion and contraception from underage girls? Because it feels like a threat. The way it's suddenly being raised.

Going on about it being life saving (one person on that Twitter thread said trans kids commit suicide all the time, it's just not true)

I saw that. It’s bollocks and the Tavi’s own research says that PBs don’t improve mental health substantially. Kids with GD have complex mental health needs and even if they were suicidal, it’s not necessarily due to not being allowed to transition. Someone I knew with GD also had depression and bipolar disorder and had already attempted suicide twice by the time he became convinced that he was female. He received therapy and thankfully realised that transitioning wouldn’t help him at all and is now working through his issues with help and support. But he would be classed as one of the suicidal trans people that TRAs talk about all the time, albeit that his suicidal tendencies were pre-existing and linked to his depression and bipolar rather than the difficulties he faced being trans.

The Tavistock procedure of requiring informed consent from the child themselves is highly unusual. I can help wondering whether this is because a surprisingly high number of parents disagree with the proposed treatment.

I've just looked on the GIDS website to check what I said earlier about GIDS requiring parental consent as well as that of the child.

gids.nhs.uk/informed-consent

This is what they say about consent in under 16s:

For young people of 16 and under, consent to treatment should usually be sought from the child and from one or both parents, except under exceptional circumstances.

So basically what Jolyon actually wants to do is to remove the need for the child to consent. To treatment that permanently alters the child’s body in ways that he or she is unable to comprehend. Fucking chilling.

twitter.com/Claire_Bradley0/status/1341842698043617281

I would argue it is life saving. The suicide statistics for trans people is 1 in 3. 32% of trans kids end up dead or attempt to kill themselves. The fatality statistics are similar to those for leukaemia and often involve similar decision making processes, for the same reasons.

One of the replies on there. It kind of shows how ridiculous the suicide myth is, when its claimed that 32% of trans kids end up dead, or actively tried to kill themselves. Meawhile, GIDS say this is extremely rare. But IF it was true even slightly, where are all the children who have sadly taken their own lives? Luckily, child suicide is quite rare. Those preteding its really really common, for the sake of advancing their own agenda, are fucking vile.

@ArabellaScott

- ah, gardenbird, I left the window open and went off and did something and missed your post!!

great minds think alike :¬))) I'm glad to have the confirmation as I can't access the document any more for some reason

It's all just so icky.
I'd love to ask Jolyon or these doctors straight out 'what sort of person would appreciate a vulnerable/confused 18 year old, with the body of a 14 year old? '


I read a piece a while ago about the suicide in young people/ children thing. For children who ID'd as trans, and forgive me I can't remember get exactly, the number was zero or 1. Which is good that it's low, isn't it?

I really do think, and the doctors who have left the tavistock, and what the bell case was all about. Is that there is way too little exploration of the drivers for the children who present.

Stats and anecdote point to complex issues. Autism. CSA. Families with firm ideas about what boys and girls should be like.

Women on here have been saying forever that for many girls, when their bodies start developing, this comes with a whole host of other stuff. Stuff which is not welcome. It can be subtle but still constant and wearing.

And these days with the prevalence of porn. Let's face it if a girl sees that. It's going to be pretty bloody unsettling if not downright scary.

The approach should be a load of psychological assessment and counselling until there is no doubt whatsoever that medical intervention is the best thing to do.

Thing is that's expensive. And doesn't feel quite so much like something is 'being done' when a child is distressed.

In the short term is cheaper to dish out drugs. Women know this. We are given anti depressants like nobody's business, more or less irrespective of what we go to the GP for.

And then once that diagnosis/ route is accepted, you're on a conveyer belt.

The other point, and I know this from experience. Is that being different is hard. At school etc. And that when you're in hosp etc you get a lot of attention. You get a place out of normal life. You are kind of important. I really think that side of things needs to be looked at more. And I say this as a person who was a child who got all that attention. I have very fond memories of my various stints in hospital. Which is weird but true. I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Oh final point. I started this post about suicide stats. Boys are most at risk. The highest rising group is girls though. There was stuff on the news about it a while back. What of them?

If they are so sure children can consent then there should be no issue with them taking a child to court, and presenting their competence and ability to adequately address the 8 points of consent set out by the judges. Child gets puberty blockers after everyone is satisfied about consent.

There are only two reasons they could object to this. The first is the belief that family court judges wouldn’t be capable of assessing the capacity of children, and that these judges would find the child wasn’t able to consent when in the view of the GLP would be incorrect, which for a law project is highly insulting.

The second is if you think taking time to adequately consent children for such a monumental decision is not necessary, and the process should be bypassed.

Anyone who thinks this should not be involved in the care of children.

From much earlier on:

They’re in very real danger of opening up a path to the very opposite thing they want to achieve. Aren’t they?

brought this to mind:

Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Which is good that it's low, isn't it?

You would think so.

But I suppose its similar to how activists like to make out transpeople are really likely to be murdered for being trans. That this is not the case at all, is ignored and you are called bigoted for even mentioning it. When, you would think the fact that transpeople in the UK are one of safest demographics, was a good thing also. Who gains, really, in transpeople being convinced via constant mantras that they are massively hated in society and likely to be attacked?! Its actually cruel, IMO, to keep pretending this is the case when it is clearly not. Scaring the shit out of them for no reason at all. Possibly contributing to any anxiety issues, and so on.

Its a bit of a mystery, why activists keep pushing lines like this, as they really really do not help transpeople in the slightest. In some cases, especially with the constant suicide baiting (which is what it is in reality) the way they behave actively makes things worse for the group they supposedly care about.

I really don’t understand puberty blockers for girls. What does it achieve?

It’s obvious what it does for boys.
Makes them pass more easily, with no sexual function, a pre-adolescent brain and a penetrable faux vagina constructed from stomach or bowel that needs daily work to stop it closing. What an achievement.

There were many cases where the parents, as well as the child wanted this treatment. The High Court would have seen lots of evidence of that.

They weren't making these decisions in a vacuum of knowledge.

Apart from not being able to adequately explain the implications to a minor, one of the reasons for them not being able to consent was that it was experimental, wasn't it?

And it's no less experimental because a parent consents.

The full implications and side-effects of puberty blockers is unknown. No one can make informed consent.

@PronounssheRa

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

This is the case of the mother who was convinced her very young child was trans. The Good Law Projects position undermines gillick but will enable parents like this.

Simon Myerson QC thinks it's deranged i agree completely

This case highlights how a number of individuals with power in a Local Authority 'transed' a young child at the behest of a very unwell mother supported by Mermaids. The judge criticised how the child was put at risk by the local authority's safeguarding failings and because they followed politically correct demands from lobby groups rather than focus on the actual needs of the child. If you're new to this debate, the judgement is well worth reading (especially if you're a tax lawyer methinks).

The pathway from blockers onto hormones needs looking at.

There is a whole load of stuff that needs looking at. Properly.

We're all on violent agreement on this thread though. Has anyone got a source or place where I can read a decent argument for?

I've seen loads of stuff but not anything that has swayed me yet tbh.

The lack of looking into the presenting child as a whole (what is going on with them?), the lack of long term follow up (understandable for an NHS clinic but still not right under the circs), the lack of interest in the blockers> hormones pathway and why does one seem to pretty much always lead to the other. The lack of consideration that a child who is probably feeling like an outsider is getting loads of attention from this. I'm sure there's more. Where is it?

Why are so many adults who are not trans so heavily focused on this?

The psychology of children who have had lots of medical intervention is interesting I bet. Have any studies been done on that? I might have a search.

I tweeted that to Myerson on that thread. He's liked the tweet so assume he''s read it. Wonder if the tax lawyer has.