Read on Twitter
Reading the Bell v Tavi judgment. Don't want to hashtag it because of the usual crowd but some observations will follow.
"The conclusion we have reached is that it is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would ever be Gillick competent to give consent to being treated with [puberty blockers]..."
"...In respect of children aged 14 and 15, we are also very doubtful that a child of this age could understand the long-term risks and consequences of treatment in such a way as to have sufficient understanding to give consent."
Gillick stands but extra obstacles put in the way for trans kids.
"....clinical interventions involve significant, long-term and, in part, potentially irreversible long-term physical, and psychological consequences for young persons. The treatment involved is truly life changing, going as it does to the very heart of an individual’s identity."
"...it is right to call the treatment experimental or innovative in the sense that there are currently limited studies/evidence of the efficacy or long-term effects of the treatment..."
"In principle, a young person’s autonomy should be protected and supported; however, it is the role of the court to protect children, and particularly a vulnerable child’s best interests..."
"...In those circumstances we consider that it is appropriate that the court should determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to take PBs. There is a real benefit in the court, almost certainly with a child’s guardian appointed, having oversight over the decision."
It's not good, folks.
Exactly. Total chilling effect. Potential for court orders being necessary. https://twitter.com/KathyDArcyCork/status/1333752591289888770
This is going to be very difficult to overturn, also.
So, the headlines saying that children can consent to treatment are "right, BUT...". The transphobes saying that children can't consent to treatment are "wrong, BUT..."
Here's what the Court thinks you need to understand to be Gillick competent to receive puberty blockers.
All through, transition is seen in a negative light. Like a last resort. Not something positive and even life-saving (as it is for many).
It is, obviously, very pathologising. We are talking about medical treatment, so that's not surprising, but still. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. People suffer from it. (Again, this is negative and unaffirming.)
The list of things that need to be understood to be Gillick competent (see above) implies that despite their stated wish not to set the bar too high, the Court is using a reasonable-person standard that may be too stringent for young people.
The Court relates taking puberty blockers (PBs) to going on to take hormonal interventions (CSH) BECAUSE most people do, but in reality you do NOT have to. It seems a false equivalance. (This happens a lot, therefore it is what happens. Hmm. Normal is not inevitable.)
I'm just thinking out loud on these last few tweets so pinch of salt/ymmv in interpretation.
We need to be very, very watchful as to the knock-on effects this could have on things like abortion. Contraception not so much. Abortion or anything with 'lifelong consequences' is now threatened for the u16s. You can see a conservative judge using this case to argue that...
... this young person cannot understand all the potential effects that choosing to have an abortion could have, and that therefore a court order might be necessary.
I am not trying to scaremonger there but it does honestly worry me. In attempting to stop trans kids accessing treatment, they may have weakened abortion rights for girls. Well done, 'feminists.'
Here's the summary judgment, if you're interested. https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1333747713301745665
