Parents kept in the dark by teachers about their 16 year old daughter’s medical transition

[rogdmum]

In this case the Head appears to have supported the parents’ wishes that their daughter’s social transition not be supported, but some teachers ignored this and even went further, keeping the daughter’s use of cross sex hormones secret:

“The couple found out how far their daughter had progressed with transitioning only after hiring lawyers to demand sight of school records. To their astonishment, the records showed some staff also knew their daughter was taking cross-sex hormones as a step towards making her body more masculine.

Subsequent disclosures showed she had also been using a chest binder to flatten her breasts, another troubling revelation the school had not shared.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4af6f1c-1276-11ee-9673-09365d127a9f?shareToken=dcf6a82e739f6596fbb7897c6484f5a4

I don’t know why you keep mentioning blockers. It is cross sex hormones that this child was prescribed

😧I thought the GMC had intervened about 2 years ago and those GPs had been struck off. As for prescribing to their own child - I have no words.

They would have needed blockers first. That article is so poorly researched I am fairly sure they are using the term " hormones" generically. But it makes little odds what is was really.

At 16 a person does not need parental consent and teachers cannot tell parents except in very limited circumstances or by going to court. It's not black and white. There is a case for increasing medical consent to 18 but as it stands that isn't the case

So, the child was ‘estranged’ while still living at home and still in their care, all because the parents was advocating to watch and wait until adulthood. And the school knew this was the path the parents had chosen for a field where treatment is finally admitted to be experimental.

Something needs to change here.

This is nothing like contraception and abortion.

This child was vulnerable due to their autism. The child, now mid teen, has been let down by ideologically driven adults. The parents approach in this instance was to wait to adulthood, it was not to deny fully.

Got info - CQC on Gillick Competence Gillick competence

Should say for info not got info 🤦🏻‍♀️

I nearly linked that, it's a good summary isn't it ?

This

It still begs the question that if adults are unaware of the consequences of the decisions and we have seen several examples of this. Like the transman who didn't realise removing their breasts would mean they couldn't breast fees their baby. The drs who had to find a work around when they were confronted with having to do surgery on male patients who had puberty suppressed and therefore didn't have enough penile growth to invert. The adults who woke up after surgery and didnt realise that using their colon would mean their fake vagina smelt etc

How when we have all seen adult drs in that specific field arguing about and being surprised at the issues presenting in the surgeries on tv broadcast to millions, can anyone think an under 18 could possibly understand.

What are they basing the decisions on. Schools are so reluctant to even give a paracetamol. I'm sure we've all been called in for period pain and head aches because the school will not give the medication. Tbey eveb prefer that you give the antibiotics kids are on outside if school hours Yet they can do this? How?

Capacity has to be assessed in relation to the decision and the individual. We can't take away the right to decisions about their healthcare or confidentiality from all people with autism or from all young people over 16, that would be terrible and is exactly what the Gillick ruling was about, the young persons right to choose contraception. I say go for the ideology, for the people prescribing, for the drug pushers, not for the people abiding by the law and attempting to provide support within their role. If she was under 16 and not Gillick competent that's different.

Not for 16 year olds. Dd carries paracetamol in her bag with the school's knowledge and consent, she is 16. It is her choice when and if she takes it.

No child is Gillick competent for puberty blockers.

I am obviously not advocating for removing the ability fir young people to consent. I'm.saying that in this particular field where adults even appear unaware of what they are consenting to or explaining to patients. How a 16 year old could be deemed able to consent. Even the drs dont appear to know what will happen. They even seem.surprised half the time.

Maybe, maybe not. It hasn't been tested. As I said I suspect they were 16 when the meds were prescribed. But we don't know.

Goldencup, why are you twisting the story? It doesn't mention blockers or an online GP. Please sop muddying the waters by introducing your assumptions.

I live in a city in the south east. I wonder if it's the same as the family in the story as the schools are captured, and there is a GP locally who is known to TRAs and feminists for prescribing cross sex hormones to teenagers, pretty much no-questions-asked. And yes, I mean hormones, not blockers.

I expect someone will sue him at some point, but until that time, he's causing untold damage.

Then again, maybe we're not in the same city as there are many captured schools, and, as has been mentioned upthread, he's not the only one.

Did you know that Helen Webberly is free to practice in the UK again? The GMC wanted her struck off but they lost their case.

Also, some ex GIDS clinicians are setting up their own private practice to enable them to keep prescribing the medical pathway to kids?

The Cass Report is much needed, but it only goes so far.

It has been brought up in court though. The judges in the Keira Bell ruling said in order for a child to be able to consent a child would have to understand the following:

i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
(ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
(iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
(iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
(v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function;
(vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
(vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blocking drugs; and
(viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain

No child can understand all of these.

Apparently it's Fraser guidelines that relate specifically to contraception. And Gillick which refers to non sexual health medical issues.

She was under sixteen when social services were called, which appears to be after the beginning of treatment, so Gillick would apply.

From the explanation above:

It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

No way she got that from an online gp. Or arguably (Kira Bell) at all, from anyone. (Kira Bell)

The teenager had been given advice on gender identity by a local youth project that works closely with the local council and has provided classes for children in schools across the region, including at hers.

Everyone on here knows vulnerable children are being deliberately targeted. Who was this? What did they say?

The government school guidelines aren't enough. The issue of Gillick competency needs readdressing. If, as I recall, the responsibility lies with the doctor prescribing, dodgy online doctors won't give a fuck until they're sued. And we all know how hard that will be.

What a mess.

The situation escalated shortly before her 16th birthday. The school told the couple that it was referring the teenager to social services and a social worker turned up at the family home.

Indicates she was under 16 when decisions were made.

Teachers seem to be going way beyond their remit and seriously meddling in their students lives. Who told them they could? They aren’t qualified to make diagnosis nor recommend any medical/psychological treatments. God complex.

Do you have evidence for this? Please share. After all, you wanted someone else to provide evidence for their assertion so it's only right that you do, too.

Exactly. You don't know.

Not.

It's a newspaper article not a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal.

Please provide evidence for your assertion.