you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

I agree that the Mirror headline spins the meaning of the judgment wildly, just by missing out the word ‘only’, but the judgment does not say

...that kids under 16 cannot possibly understand what the treatment will do to them because at that age they do not have the capacity.

See para 151. Rather than ban puberty blockers and hormones altogether for kids the court ruled on how Gillick competence applies to them. Para 138 sets out specifically what a child must ‘understand, retain and weigh up’ in order to be considered able to give meaningful consent. The court also says that the child must understand these for both puberty blockers and hormones as they are part of the same treatment pathway. It is a very strict set of criteria which I doubt GIDS has any chance of showing it can meet for any child currently on its books.