Read on Twitter
This quotation from Mr Maugham is badly wrong.
The age at which we can validly consent to a treatment must be a matter of law. Nobody thinks, surely, that a ten year old could have consented to the treatment he is advocating for.
/1
The age at which we can validly consent to a treatment must be a matter of law. Nobody thinks, surely, that a ten year old could have consented to the treatment he is advocating for.
/1
That doesn't meant that we can't, in good faith, disagree with the result and reasoning in that case. I have tweeted about the difficulties with it.
Maugham isn't doing that. He is mischaracterising the issue before the court.
/2
Maugham isn't doing that. He is mischaracterising the issue before the court.
/2
"“[They] always think they know better and never fucking listen.”"
-J Maugham QC
Quite so.
/3
-J Maugham QC
Quite so.
/3
“The court wrongly denied trans young people, any voice at all in that hearing, we hope that we might persuade the Court of Appeal to allow that community - to have a voice in the Court of Appeal.”
What would the probative value of that be for the issue before the court?
/4
What would the probative value of that be for the issue before the court?
/4
“You find yourself in a world where a child and a parent, both of whom want that child to have access to puberty blockers, have to go and ask some judge for permission."
Ok, why so? Let me explain.
/5
Ok, why so? Let me explain.
/5
First, the parent cannot give valid consent. If a parent consented to her child having a face tattoo, that would not be valid.
But this is a treatment, so why doesn't it suffice here?
/6
But this is a treatment, so why doesn't it suffice here?
/6
Because unlike treatment for cancer or a broken leg, this case concerns the mental state of the patient. Something only the patient can testify too.
The parent can't make the choice for the patient. She doesn't experience that.
/7
The parent can't make the choice for the patient. She doesn't experience that.
/7
"The read across from that judgment to a child's right to consent to an abortion is obvious, right?"
It isn't "obvious "*at all* to anyone who has bothered to read the case
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3274.html
Read [132]-[150]
/8
It isn't "obvious "*at all* to anyone who has bothered to read the case
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3274.html
Read [132]-[150]
/8
Maybe Bell v Tavistock is wrong.
But wrong or right, prominent members of my profession should be engaging with the reasons given for the result, not mischaracterising them in this way.
/crosslyends
But wrong or right, prominent members of my profession should be engaging with the reasons given for the result, not mischaracterising them in this way.
/crosslyends
[And I had hoped that he'd been misquoted, but apparently not as he is tweeting out the interview with approval.]
