Bell v Tavistock.

The subtantive reasoning. A quick summary and reflection.

If you read from [126]-[153] you have the lw summarised (accurately) and the court's reasoning.

/1

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

First, and importantly, the irresponsible claim that this decision undermines the Gillick case, or will cut back access to contraception or abortion is complete nonsense.

Read the section above.

/2

Second, the key to the court's reasoning (whether you agree with it or not) is at [134]-[138].

The argument goes as follows.

/3

Puberty blockers prevent a child from going through the physical and psychological consequences of development. This may contribute to the child failing to understand their identity. This increases the likelihood of progressing to irreversible cross sex hormones.

[137].

/4

So, a child would need to understand not just the impact of the puberty blockers and that of cross sex hormones (whihc have serious irrevesible consequnces).

Children under 16 will find that difficult to do. [139]

/5

Highly unlikely a 13 year old could consent.

Doubtful a 14 or 15 year old can consent.

16 and over possible to consent, but given difficulties whould seek a court order first.

/6

Whether you accept the reasoning will depend upon your view as to the causal contribution takin puberty blockers may have to progression on to cross-sex hormones.

/7