you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

You don't seem to have any clue about child safeguarding - an area that the UK is a world leader in. I suggest looking into the UK's Children's Act, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The novel and movie "The Children's Act" are also worth looking into.

Also, it's not the case that the judges are the ones making the decisions in these cases. The judges are brought in to be a neutral, quizzical third party to assess whether the clinicians/parents are acting in the child's best interests, and whether the child can or cannot consent. This is basic safeguarding, not "gatekeeping." And the judges always consult and take evidence from experts in the field in each case. They don't do this off the cuff.

A clinic like the GIDS should be doing safeguarding and ethics reviews in house - it's a statutory and moral duty. But as anyone familiar with what's been going on at GIDS knows, a large number clinicians there as well as governors have said there is no ethical oversight or attempt to do evidence-based treatment. What's more, the GIDS safeguarding head is suing GIDS for not allowing her to do her job.

Judicial oversight happens all the time in cases involving children and family matters, such as divorce. Even when divorcing parents come to custody, parenting and financial agreements, a judge - and usually temporary guardians ad litems appointed by the court to represent the kids' - still has/have to review the arrangements to make sure the children's rights aren't being violated.

Same thing goes when a lone parent travels internationally with their children. It's quite customary for a mother or father traveling alone with their kids to be pulled aside at airports/borders by immigration officials and the kids and parent to interrogated separately, so as to insure that the adult has the legal right to take the children cross borders and isn't trying to spirit them away into another jurisdiction to keep them from the other parent illegally. This happened to me several times when I had young kids. I never took offense at it; I took it as a welcome sign that the officials were doing their duty to protect my children's rights.

[–]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.