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 →

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Honestly I started reading the document, but I can't be bothered to read pages of laws that don't apply to the discussion and are from a country I particularly care about. If you want to point me to any specific paragraphs from the law then I'd be much obliged.im aware of the UN convention however. I think the most relevant articles are 12, and 24. Thou I'd argue that 24 can be used to argue both in favor as well as in opposition of gatekeeping. This leaves us with 12 which is inconclusive as well given that it only states that the child's interests and opinion should be considered in any matter regarding the child. Which could be used to argue in favor of the clinics method, but since I don't agree with them I won't do that. If I have overlooked anything, then feel free to point that out.

Maybe you should look into the process of name change in Germany, which I used for comparison and follows exactly this process and still has the issues I outlined, since it involves judges who, beeing part of the political system - beeing appointed by the politician - does that to you - won't necessarily decide in the patients best interests.

I don't see how divorce or immigration are more applicable examples than the one I gave. A child transitioning isn't a family matter.

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

I can't be bothered to read pages of laws that don't apply to the discussion and are from a country I particularly care about.

Yet you feel qualified to opine about this case from the UK.

Your assertion that "I can't be bothered to read pages of laws" pertaining to child safeguarding doesn't reflect well on you.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not arguing about the legalities of the case. My only gripe with it is the following.

Even in cases involving teenagers under 18 doctors may need to consult the courts for authorisation for medical intervention

Im opposed to having courts and thus a political system involved in medical treatment on a practical basis. Not a legal one. So I don't see how knowing the intrecacies of these laws would change that stance. My issue isn't with the safeguarding itself. I actually agree that it is necessary. I just don't think that involving the courts in these cases has additional benefits compared to a solution within the nhs.