Both: How do you feel about the High Court's decision in the Keira Bell case?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I’m proud of her for speaking out and I hope more will follow. I’m not sure how I feel about decisions about who should get blockers falling to courts, but it’s better than Tavistock just giving them to everyone. I feel like we need to go back to earlier models for treating kids that allow them time to desist without interference. We shouldn’t be basing these decisions on how trans adults feel about it.

Edit: Also, we need more research specifically about trans females. As usual, there is a data gap that favors males and the way we treat males may not be how we should treat females.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We need better research for sure. Gender dysphoria in males and females appears to manifest in dramatically different ways.

I’m not sure how I feel about decisions about who should get blockers falling to courts, but it’s better than Tavistock just giving them to everyone.

A huge part of the problem is that the children are not actually being treated. These clinics are not engaged in "watchful waiting." They're engaged in active affirmation of the trans identity, with no investigation whatsoever into past abuse, trauma, or mental health issues. Bell had issues like that which were completely ignored and left unaddressed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

this law only effects the poor who are least capable of navigating the court system

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not true. This decision affects both the NHS and private practitioners in the UK, as well as HCPs prescribing from abroad who write scrips to be filled in the the UK. The clinicians are the ones who will have to seek a court order to prescribe PBs to minors, not the kids they are treating. The class and current financial status of the kids being treated are immaterial.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you don’t think that middle class and rich people don’t have options that poor people don’t then you’re mistaken

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure, people with financial means can doctor-shop amongst private practitioners in the UK, or go outside the country like Susie Green did to put her son on puberty blockers and CSHs.

But in most cases, prescriptions written by doctors operating outside the UK will still have to be filled by regulated UK pharmacies. Which are already on the alert to orgs like Gender GP, operating outside the UK, trying to get around the ruling. I imagine pharmacies - if only coz their insurance companies force them to - will be putting in place extra controls to flag up when these drugs are being prescribed to kids and to make sure the treatment is legit. As happens in the case of other drugs, like morphine.

Also, in the UK, GPs will be on notice to detect the signs of PB and CSH use amongst their minor patients.

This ruling is just the beginning of more stringent efforts to protect young people in England and Wales.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This ruling is a temporary abberation from a country that the conservatives are running into the ground. When Labour gets back in power the pendulum will swing the other way, against bigotry