Sunday Times Mum wins case to stop Gender GP

[Cismyfatarse]

Mother wins landmark court ruling to stop child having private trans treatment

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/20276262-7016-11ee-8275-e4bad3604bca?shareToken=590d845315b0d71da77c347639fb0da7

Hopefully the share token works and the mother knows the support she would get on here. Sending her a massive cheer and a hug.

@happydappy2

There is such thing as a trans child - it's rare but there are plenty of cases of prepubescent children who are trans and were long before the current "fashion" for teens. I'm not suggesting the drugs or surgery should be offered at all, I'm just pointing out that your statement is incorrect. How do I know? Because I know one, aged 3 refusing to wear dresses and wanting boy parts, that little girl is a 28 year old transman and very happy now

Proper psychological support should be offered with treatment available from 18 or 2 years after first contact with medical professionals in my opinion, 2 years to ensure it's fully thought through

It hinges on the child fully understanding the implications of treatment/not being treated and given the turmoil and confusion around this topic I doubt most people could make a truly informed choice let alone a 16yr old.
As @lechiffre55 said.
And given the consequences of transitioning: medical pathway for life, loss of sexual function, difficulty in detransitioning, certainly time out is best option. Once an adult it can be their choice

The link to the crowdfunder is mentioned at the bottom of The Mail article (very obliging of them) so I’ve made a note of it in my calendar and will plant a few bulbs on payday.

It’s so creepy and disturbing to read posters on here pushing for children to be irrevocably damaged by surgery and drugs - as it is wherever adults push for this kind of boundary crossing. What are their motivations? It beggars belief.

Creepy and disturbing that people support the concept of Gillick competency which has governed medical decisions by minors for nearly four decades?

You realise I’m not the one campaigning here? I’m perfectly content with the Gillick competence status quo. It is people looking to rip up Gillick who want to change things.

Thanks for the thread @Cismyfatarse - it’s heartening to see any progress.

You do understand that gillikic competence does NOT cover cosmetic surgery or sterilising children, and as both puberty blockers and cross sex hormones causes sterility they really aren't compatible with gillikic

Thank you, have gardened. All best wishes to the young woman and her mum in finding the right answer.

The Gillick competency is not fool proof - it’s a rare 14 year old who can think through the consequences of their actions. My daughter is deemed old enough to have sex but honestly if you talked to her about it, and the mad things she and her friends say about it, you wouldn’t know whether to laugh or cry!

I’m not sure a person within a cult would be deemed Gillick competent just because they were 16.

I think it’s safe to say that the people who are trying to remove barriers to children having body parts amputated and made permanently sterile are the ones that are trying to change things.

Creepy and disturbing that people use the false relevance of Gillick competence to justify irreversible medical treatments for something that "isn't an illness".

Has anybody involved in the case raised the question of Gillick competence?

Gillick competence is not determinative, it does not put the child in the same position as a capacitous adult. A court can override the decision of a Gillick competent child or a child over 16. That has always been the case and this case realatively recently reaffirmed that law: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/65.html It's not a short case but if you read the first two paragraphs, the rest of the case essentially reaffirms that that is the law.

We know very little about this mother's case but it's very unlikely to be challenging Gillick. Much more likely that she's seeking to persuade the court that there is a serious enough health risk that child should not be having the treatment regardless of competence.

Just putting the link to the other thread about this. The crowdfunded can be find by following the steps suggested.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4925503-sense-in-the-family-court?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Creepy and disturbing that people support the concept of Gillick competency which has governed medical decisions by minors for nearly four decades?

Which relies on the young people involved being properly informed. Given the lack of proper information, how can they be?
I can’t think of any other situation where powerful medicines being used off-label, with no evidence base or even clinical rationale for their use, are handed out to young people on what is effectively a self-diagnosis of a condition that isn’t even clearly defined. To say nothing of subsequent major surgeries.

The Court of Appeal disagree about the application of Gillick competence to puberty blockers.

@PlanetJanette the threshold of Gillick Competence is perfectly sensible for a teen to have the capacity to consent to immediate treatments including contraception, abortion and treatments for physical illnesses. A much much higher threshold of maturity is required for someone to know that not only do they never want children (acknowledged small, unguaranteed possibility of retaining that capacity via ivf) but also that they never want an orgasm. Gillick Competence isn't used to allow a 16yo to consent get a tattoo, would never be used to allow an anorexic child to choose to get a gastric band fitted, and it's equally inappropriate for it to apply for consent to the removal of healthy and fully functional body parts that the adult they grow into may wel want to use.

The human brain finishes maturing at 25. Before that age the appropriate treatment is counselling that affirms the person's right to express gender however they wish but to do so accepting that their physical sex is fixed, unchangeable and entirely unrelated to their gender identity because no one is born into a body that is wrong.

How many people do you know who regret being on contraceptives? They might regret the underage sex but the Gillick case is about being competant to access the contraceptives not conscent to the sex (which of course under law they cannot).

Accessing potentially permanent, life changing medical treatment that is still in it infancy and with regard to understanding the consequences is very hard even if you are a doctor never mind under 18, is not remotely comparable to accessing the pill.

So I have no idea if they are Gillick competant, but they damn well are not competant to assess research into the life-long consequences of a relatively new set of drugs and procedures.

PlanetJanette is quite right that the current law is that the Gillick competence test applies to puberty blockers (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bell-v-Tavistock-judgment-170921.pdf - especially paragraph 76). Obviously a doctor should assess competence in the context of the decision being made so it's likely to be harder for a child to show competence for puberty blockers than contraception given the state of the evidence and the risks involved. But the Court of Appeal clearly considers that a child can be comptent to consent to puberty blockers.

BUT people often seem to misunderstand Gillick competence. It doesn't mean that the child's decision has the same status as an adult with capacty. A court can overrule a competent child's decision. That's a serious step but courts are quite willing to take it where there is a risk of death or serious harm. It sounds very much as if that's what the mother here is doing - not challenging the law on Gillick but just applying the settled law. That law allows a court to decide the issue, whether or not the child is competent (albeit that if the child is competent the court will take that into account).

Yes the court can override the wishes of a Gillick competent minor but in extremis. If the claim here is that this person is Gillick competent but that taking puberty blockers prescribed by doctors is equivalent to the refusal of life saving treatment recommended by doctors, I’m not sure that makes it much better to be honest.

The problem with your examples (aside from the fact that trans people can and do have orgasms…) is that getting a tattoo or a gastric band for someone with anorexia are not medically prescribed treatments.

Puberty blockers are medically approved and prescribed for the treatment of gender dysphoria in some cases.

The commercial sale of puberty blockers is not a life saving medical treatment.

The commercial sale of cross-sex hormones is not a life saving treatment.

It appears that two of Gender GP’s young customers have committed suicide whilst on a hormone regime purchased from Gender GP.

Helen Webberly’s husband was struck off the medical register on the grounds of negligence in one of those cases.