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

That's like saying condoms sterilise men because they stop semen reaching an egg. While the second clause is true, the sterilisation clause is not - because as soon as the condom is removed the impact on fertility ends.

Blocking puberty blocks the development of fertility. It does not destroy it, and that development of fertility resumes when puberty resumes. Unless as an adult, the (former) child decides that they want to continue on to cross sex hormones.

Yes that’s the one.

The kids harmed by this still have time to take legal action.

From Google - “In the UK, the statute of limitations for medical negligence claims is generally three years. This means legal action must be initiated within three years of either the date of the negligent incident or the date the individual became aware of the negligence, whichever is later”

So the clock only starts ticking when the person realises they were sold a dud by the trans activists and they are not really trans but have suffered severe medical harm.

A quick check shows that damages for a medical negligence claim leading to infertility can be up to £200,000.

Damages for incorrect amputation can range from tens of thousands to a million pounds.

It will be very interesting v to look at the legal position re insurers and personal liability from doctors etc. The NHS will clearly be liable for some large payouts if action is taken.

I understand there is still a class action being put together which will obviously take years but could have a huge impact.

As an example, the distributors of Thalidomide paid out £28 million in the 1970s and in 2012 the government paid out £80 million. We shall see what happens to the numbers of kids who want to take action on this.

When they stop being gaslit by the trans activists that it was all their own fault and they only have themselves to blame obviously.

Hang on, are you now claiming that you didn't say that you don't think that women have the capacity to consent to a sterilisation?

Because its pretty objectively the case that you did, in fact, say that.

"I agree that medical interventions should only be given to those who can consent. Currently, for this type of decision, affecting fertility and future health, the NHS places the age at which consent should be accepted at about 30. I think that sounds reasonable."

So what is inaccurate in my claim that you have said that a woman in her 20s lacks capacity to consent to sterilisation?

PlanetJanette ·

The ethics by which UK practitioners are bound, and the basis by which they should go about resolving ethical dilemma, is set out by guidance from professional organisations like the BMA and in the legal framework within which they operate.

Quite apart from all of the absolute rubbish you've posted, regarding puberty blockers and loss of fertility, it's the RES, not the BMA, which is a union.

I feel like we’ve gone back several years.

Cass and the Tavistock data established that puberty blockers are being used to stop puberty altogether and it has the effect of ‘locking in’ the trans identity. All but one patient went onto cross sex hormones and that wasn’t because of an extremely accurate and objective diagnostic process targeting the right patients, because they didn’t have one. Their ‘diagnostic process’ has been seen to have failed.

Please provide your data on patients who have successfully gone onto successfully complete puberty after taking puberty blockers to stop their puberty.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Puberty blockers if taken long enough absolutely kill puberty & even if they are stopped puberty will not occur. Once you have missed the window of opportunity for puberty to happen it’s gone forever.

It's less about the power of the patient to consent and more about the power of the doctor to refuse treatment that they think may harm their patient.

There are many areas of medical care where a doctor will refuse treatment that they think is harmful.

Doctors have control over their decisions too, and particularly in a system where the efficacy of care has to be evaluated, patients cannot demand care. See also heavily contested decisions to cease treatment of children.

For women, the negotiation of this is fundamental to sex based rights.

A man can avoid the consequences of pregnancy by simply putting distance between himself and the woman he has made pregnant.

A woman requires medical intervention.

None of this has anything to do with 'gender affirming care', which is the subject of this thread.

'When puberty resumes'?

It has been established that the likely outcome of prescribing GnRH analogues to 'block' puberty is that puberty never resumes. Nobody understands the long term impact of this.

Is it paternalistic if no men are involved in her treatment? It seems to me to be rather lazy to invoke paternalism.

Also not clear that an NHS doctor would be any more willing to sterilise a childless man under 30. I think it's easier to reverse a vasectomy, so I suppose that would be an important factor.

Back to the topic in hand, because what age doctors consider it ethical to sterilise people really is not the point of this discussion - I do hope the government find a way to stop Green cashing in on harming children.

The NHS have made the decision on the basis of the available evidence that the treatment shouldn't be given outside carefully controlled trials, obviously it is very concerning that someone else is trying to arrange for the treatments to be given basically at the click of a button. Someone with no medical expertise, just a personal interest in normalising what she did to her own child.

Right but the poster I was quoting specifically spoke about capacity to consent. And then claimed I’d misrepresented her by accurately reflecting back the view she expressed.

Your version is more grounded in reality insofar as health systems do need to prioritise resources and care and so doctors do have a role in that. But none of that amounts to a justification of some sort of blanket ban on sterilisation of women under 30.

To take an example of a woman who cannot take the pill for medical reasons and for whom an IUD is painful or uncomfortable, I think she has a right to have a sex life without broadening her risk of pregnancy or depending on her sexual partner to use a condom (correctly, or at all).

And if she is of sound mind then she absolutely should be trusted to know better than her doctor whether a sterilisation to facilitate that is the right option for her. Doctors should not be basing their decisions on the potential for regret 15 years later - and I’m not aware of any other area of medical treatment which might be sought by a patient where that factor, and not any medical harm, is a reason to deny treatment.

I notice that Planet is still wanging on about cutoff ages for sterilisation on the NHS, and is still studiously avoiding saying anything about Susie Green's activities.

Any chance of a comment on the OP's subject?

Maybe not. But as you (I think it was you) said, men are less affected by unplanned pregnancy. Theirs is not the body that has to have the morning after pill or a termination or to give birth if there is an unplanned pregnancy. They are also far more in control of the usage of the most accessible and least invasive form of contraception available (condoms). By contrast, most contraception within the control of women has the potential to be at best uncomfortable or at worse medically harmful.

So even if the same rule is applied to men and women, the effect of that rule falls disproportionately on women.

I honestly can’t believe that on a so called feminism forum that I’m having to explain why women should be allowed autonomy over their own fertility.

Yes, a vasectomy can sometimes (usually?) be reversed, but men and their partners certainly used to be, and I assume still are, given clear warnings that there is no guarantee of reversal being successful. The clearer case is castration (bilateral orchidectomy) which of course is irreversible, and ought to be reserved for life threatening conditions, and irreparable physical trauma.

Any chance you might buck the trend and be a so called GC feminist who actually argues that women should be able to control their own fertility?

Or are you also in the camp of saying women can’t make those decisions because their pretty little 29 year old heads can’t possibly weigh up the risk that they might regret the decision later on?

Come now, what about boys who like to play with dolls? Surely that's justification enough?

This is the policy in the NHS.

"You can have a vasectomy at any age. However, if you are under 30, particularly if you do not have children, your doctor may be reluctant to perform the procedure.

Your GP does have the right to refuse to carry out the procedure or refuse to refer you for the procedure if they do not believe that it is in your best interests."

So you're flat out refusing to address the subject of the thread and demanding that I should agree with your derail?

Good luck if you think that'll shut me up. I can keep bringing this up indefinitely.

Note that PJ not only refuses to engage with the subject of the thread and demands that we have a conversation about her tangent instead, but she also demands a response based on an aggressively partisan framing.

Any chance you might buck the trend and be a so called GC feminist who actually argues that women should be able to control their own fertility?
Or are you also in the camp of saying women can’t make those decisions because their pretty little 29 year old heads can’t possibly weigh up the risk that they might regret the decision later on?

Even if I agreed with PJ, I wouldn't agree to that framing, partly because of the insulting way it's framed, but mainly because it's framed in such a way to allow PJ to then claim agreement with any tangentially related opinion she might have.

I reject PJ's premises outright, and look forward to PJ expressing a view on Susie Green's antics.

Perhaps you could stop trying to recycle the failed TRA arguments from 2020 things have moved on from then.
Everyone knows puberty blockers sterilise children its even in the info leaflet that they come with along with all the other known side effects, we also know that their not a harmless pause button due to the fact that they prevent the maturation of the brain that normally happens in puberty (cross sex hormones dont trigger it) and thus locks in trans status and lead to cross sex hormones for almost 100% of children put on them.
Now would you like to discuss the medical abuse of children that susie green is facilitating through her clinic and how it can be prevented

Given her embarrassing ignorance about the effect of puberty blockers, I would be astounded if she makes any further attempt to get involved in the original post.

I honestly can’t believe that on a so called feminism forum that I’m having to explain why women should be allowed autonomy over their own fertility.

I actually agree with what you have said about the vastly different impact of reproductive role on men and women.

The need for women to be able to control their fertility is, I think, the most obvious sex based right and why it is so important that sex and sex specific rights are recognised in law. I'm so glad that you understand this.

However, that right is not absolute. A pregnant woman cannot demand an abortion at any time.

In the specific case of sterilisation, doctors are allowed to balance the consequences of giving irreversible treatment to somebody who may later regret their decision, given that other forms of long term but completely reversible contraception are available.

But even if you think the balance is wrong in both these instances, it still doesn't follow that GNrH antagonists (no evident of benefit, clear evidence of harm) should be prescribed to prevent puberty, because that is a completely different treatment, and the judgement needs to be made on completely different criteria. It's really not clear why you would conflate two such different things, and calls into question whether you are arguing in good faith.

Which premises about women’s rights to choose a sterilisation do you disagree with?

Hang on you lot claim there are lots and lots of detransitioners out there. But also that puberty blockers ‘lock in’ a trans identity. Those two things are not compatible unless you think puberty blockers actively prevent regret/detransitioning which I don’t think you do.