Read on Twitter
1/n On the #KieraBell court ruling. This is a UK High Court legal review that has been set in motion since January. Defendant: The Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
The NHS England also enters as "Interested Party". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/05/high-court-to-decide-if-children-can-consent-to-gender-reassignment
The NHS England also enters as "Interested Party". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/05/high-court-to-decide-if-children-can-consent-to-gender-reassignment
2/ One point here: the #Tavistock, & anybody who cared, have had since January to brush up their data, & their legal arguments, since January. *Plenty* of time.
It involves not just #KieraBell, but another, Mrs. A..
A good start to understanding: https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/30/keira-bell-there-was-nothing-wrong-with-my-body/
It involves not just #KieraBell, but another, Mrs. A..
A good start to understanding: https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/30/keira-bell-there-was-nothing-wrong-with-my-body/
3/ So what is the #KieraBell legal review case & ruling about?
The prescribing of puberty-suppressing meds to those under the age of 18 who experience #GenderDysphoria, by the #Tavistock, through its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf
The prescribing of puberty-suppressing meds to those under the age of 18 who experience #GenderDysphoria, by the #Tavistock, through its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf
4/ The claimants in the #KieraBell case, Quincy Bell and Mrs. A., claimed "persons under 18 are not competent to give consent to the administration of puberty-blocking drugs", & more: that info given by Tavistock was inadequate & not safeguarded enough.
5/ So 2 clear, separate issues here.
a/ Can those under 18 give *informed* legal consent to radical treatment w/ puberty-blocking drugs (if not, issue then becomes parental and/or legal);
b/ Did the #Tavistock give adequate information, did it have adequate safeguards in place?
a/ Can those under 18 give *informed* legal consent to radical treatment w/ puberty-blocking drugs (if not, issue then becomes parental and/or legal);
b/ Did the #Tavistock give adequate information, did it have adequate safeguards in place?
6/ §9 in full ruling ( https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf): note what was decided: when "a child or young person may be competent to give valid #consent to treatment in law" & "process by which consent to the treatment is obtained"
& what the court expressly *didn't* decide:
& what the court expressly *didn't* decide:
7/ So let's skip to *what the court ruled*, then work our way backwards thru all the interesting points.
First the court ruled *in effect* no child under 14 can understand or consent to puberty-blockers, & no child under 16 can rly understand, a court should be involved:
§151:
First the court ruled *in effect* no child under 14 can understand or consent to puberty-blockers, & no child under 16 can rly understand, a court should be involved:
§151:
8/ Then the court decided, that while a person, aged 16 to just under 18, may be able to give consent to puberty-blockers (PB's), the nature of the treatment, & its consequences, are such that a court ruling should perhaps be sought in each case *anyway*.
§152:
§152:
9/ So we all clear on that? Below 14, no child can "consent" to such treatment. Then 14 to just under 16, a child may be able to 'consent' but usually doesn't really understand. Then 16 to just under 18, it's still so thorny that perhaps a court should be involved anyway.
10/ New thread! https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1334268710463401988
This particular thread on one single page (remember, I am now onto the new thread, and a couple more after that): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1334246707694071820.html
