Anne health Susie Greens new clinic

[Hoardasurass]

So not happy with the puberty blockers ban in the UK and frustrated by Wes Streeting closing her planned loophole she found a new one and has been arranging for parents to take their kids abroad to get prescriptions of puberty blockers injections and testosterone for under 16s. The government has said its going to stop the practice but hasn't said how.

Gift token for the telegraph article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/d5a10834b446c428

Are you saying that there was a court judgment which stated that pre-pubescent children are capable of understanding the effect of treatment which would sterilise them and leave them with impaired sexual function?

And a court judgment which stated that there is evidence that this treatment is beneficial for minors?

Can you post some links to these judgments?

You are just writing your own script now, and not making any attempt to actually understand the points that people are trying to make about 'autonomy' and about ethics. And so you are misrepresenting them.

Your insistence that an 18 year old has this ‘capacity’ is extremely troubling.

Interestingly, on a thread about a woman with no medical background who was sacked from one charity after ruining its reputation and has now started up a business designed to cause medical injury to children, there has been strong efforts to derail with talk of abortion rights.

Susie Green moved from being an IT worker (I think) to become CEO of Mermaids. She took the charity and from being an actual support charity helping distressed children to an organisation that has suffered a serious data breach, a scandal with a trustee who write in favour of paedophiles and was featured in a pornographic publication online.

They featured a boy dressed up as a sexualised ‘doll’ in a bedroom in pictures in their website. There were serious safeguarding failures with their online messaging service and I think they were sending binders to children without their parents knowledge.

There is footage of her laughing about her sons ‘micropenis’ caused by early puberty blockers and admitting that her husband was homophobic and refused to accept an effeminate son so ‘somehow’ her son ‘realised’ (after being subjected to punishments like having all his favourite toys taken away) that he was really a girl. This was keenly embraced by his parents and as a young teen he was taken abroad for puberty blockers, then to Thailand for surgery on his 16th birthday.

This woman is now deliberately and repeatedly enabling parents to circumvent the law and harm their own children. As Helen Joyce observed, these parents can’t ever let go of the ideology as admitting they’ve harmed their children for such a huge lie is impossible.

Yes, that's right. I disagree because you're just so subtle.

Not because what you're advocating is that women's autonomy over their own bodies should be subjugated to some pre-ordained societal factors determined by our biology.

The court judgment was that a blanket determination that under 16s are automatically incapable of understanding the effects of puberty blockers, or that it is a necessary condition of assessing capacity that they also have capacity to understand the effects of cross sex hormones.

Oh I can get my head around it alright.

I can get my head around what happens when people dictate that grown women can't possibly make decisions about their own bodies when it concerns their fertility and reproduction because they are incapable of making a decision.

I can get my head around what happens when a medical system is based around the concept of doctors disregarding women's wishes because they know better what the woman should want.

I understand them entirely. I just disagree with them.

I don't believe that the decisions women make about their own bodies should be subjugated to some wider societal context, much less some mystical predetermination based on our biology.

I don't agree that 'individuated' approached to medical decisions are in any way wrong or contrary to medical ethics. On the contrary, I think medical decisions should be individuated to each specific individual, so that treatment matches the specific needs and wishes of individual patients to the extent possible.

"I consent" is not a magic wand to over-ride doctors' ethics.

A patient can unwisely refuse treatment if they choose. A doctor, however, has responsibility not to give a treatment that they know on balance will do harm. It's not patriarchal (who said the doctor was a man anyway?), it's ethics. Used to be called 'first do no harm', the oath doesn't apply any more but the principle does.

There are any number of cases where that has been applied apart from gender stuff. People who want their limbs removed. People who want other extreme forms of cosmetic surgery. But also other things - say someone obese who needs a particular surgery that's too dangerous because of their body weight, they can't just say "i consent anyway, it's worth the risk to me" - the doctor has to insist that they lose weight first so it can be done ethically. Because they would be struck off if they were shown to have done something recklessly that harmed a patient, whether the patient consented or not.

I'm not the one who first raised the argument that women under 30 do not have capacity to consent to medical treatment.

A doctor can ethically refuse treatment that is not clinically indicated or which would cause medical harm.

A doctor should not be able to refuse treatment that is clinically indicated and where the only harm that might arise is the risk of regret at not being able to have children in the future (aside from the usual potential risks of surgery to which I hope you can agree that adult women can consent). I.e. not a medical harm.

Also, denial of the treatments you are discussing is not based on lack of capacity. In fact I can't think of any other area of treatment where we would say that an adult of sound mind is incapable of making decisions to have a clinically indicated treatment because somehow they are incapable of weighing up the risk of future regret. But uniquely when it comes to a woman who knows she does not want children, we supplant a doctor's opinion for her own, despite that desire - now or in the future - not being a medical issue to determine.

I'm sorry, but we've been through several pages of you playing word games and trying to turn this thread into a discussion of everything but Susie Green's new cowboy transquackery operation.

Do you have anything to say about the actual subject of the OP?

Abortion and contraception will always be part of a wider societal context because both require medical intervention and care, so access to services and funding.

much less some mystical predetermination based on our biology.

‘Mystical’ has nothing to do with it. To avoid unwanted pregnancy women rely on a framework of rights and services that must be negotiated and continuously protected - sex based rights.

Currently, it is unlawful to sterilise minors unless the treatment is literally lifesaving (eg cancer treatment).
Susie Green is the person who objected to 'the sterilisation clause', yes?

archive.is/w0pW6

@PlanetJanette

You have taken us down many roads and up several blind alleys but, at the end of the day, you have not provided a single argument for why Ms Greene's latest enterprise is anything other than an exploitative, self justifying grift.

And I didn’t say that either.

You have remained very focused on the theoretical 29 year old.

I am more concerned about the many very real 18 (and 13,14,15 etc) year olds that are being harmed by a woman who is deliberately flouting the law.

What do you think of her company that provides referral letters for surgery for children and works with a surgeon who promoted his services to youngsters on Instagram? The company tries to avoid face to face appointments wherever possible yet prescribes cross sex hormones and puberty blockers to children.

There is no mention that any diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required to use her services and they don’t provide a diagnosis themselves.

Can you see any potential issues with this?

Wow! I shouldn’t be surprised at the sheer determination of this woman to harm as many kids as possible but…

There a reason why psychological assessment is not required for normal surgeries - it’s because a doctors or doctors have established a clear and verifiable clinical need.

She doesn’t even require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to write a surgery referral letter. If the medical regulatory bodies can’t stop her doing this, then they are not fit for purpose.

Two things. If you want to debate the age at which men and women should be allowed to sterilise themselves, start your own thread.

I mentioned it as an example of current NHS practice that is not currently being applied consistently with a certain group of especially vulnerable people.

There is no clinical indication at all for the type of treatments being marketed to the young and vulnerable with mental health issues by Susie Greens company so your post is not relevant.

I've read this several times and I can't understand what you're trying to say. Which case was this?

You seem to be saying that the court ruled that under 16s can't understand the effects of puberty blockers and they would also have to understand the effects of cross sex hormones in order to give informed consent. Is that what you meant to say? If so, you are agreeing with me and the PP who you said was talking nonsense.

I agree, I think reading this that PJ is now understanding that children are not able to consent to puberty blockers.
After all, why inflict any healthy bodies with unnecessary hormones?
In the case of deveping bodies and minds it is truly senseless.

I mean I can understand why you’re not keen to defend any further your view that the very essence of female biology involves a ceding of autonomy.

But you were the one who raised this point about adult women not having the capacity to consent to decisions about their own fertility. And of course it’s relevant - how can we take seriously your views on capacity if you think even 29 year old women of sound mind lack capacity.

So I’m afraid this is relevant to the thread which is fundamentally about the age at which people can consent to medical treatments.

You’re right that I drafted that badly and left out some words.

To be clear, the Court of Appeal in Bell held that there is no presumption that under 16s cannot consent to puberty blockers, nor that the threshold for capacity is understanding of the impacts of cross sex hormones which are not being prescribed.

Children should be assessed based on the usual Gillick standards with no presumption against capacity.

You might need to tell that to the poster who supports curtailing those rights by declaring that any woman under 30 lacks capacity to consent to a sterilisation.

By contrast, I and almost all supporters of trans rights that I know favour protecting existing, or expanding, women’s reproductive choices and freedoms. The same can certainly not be said of the other side of this discussion, where extremely patriarchal approaches to women’s fertility are espoused on a so called feminism board.

With zero challenge from any other so called feminists who claim their opposition to trans rights stems from feminism.

Plenty. Read my posts. But I’m not the one who claimed that women lack capacity to consent to a sterilisation until they are 30, nor that a core part of female biology is ceding autonomy.

If you’re unhappy one of your fellow travellers let the mask slip and exposed troublingly patriarchal views to zero challenge from any of the so called ‘GC feminists’ you’ll have to take it up with them.

You could have just said you were referring to Bell v Tavistock or posted a link.

This is a thread about the appeal.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4350998-the-judgment-in-keira-bell-s-case-will-be-given-tomorrow

And this is a relevant paragraph from the summary of the judgment.

15. The Court of Appeal recognised the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether under 18s were competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers, but it was for clinicians to exercise their judgment knowing how important it was for the patient’s consent to be properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances. Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.

Judges are experts in law, not medicine, and what they did here is to hand responsibility for prescribing back to clinicians. They have left the door open for patients who believe they have been harmed by clinical decisions to sue the medical professionals responsible.

The Cass review, a medical report by a paediatrician, made it clear that puberty blockers should not be routinely prescribed to minors due to a lack of evidence around their safety and efficacy.