Transing ChildrenUnidentified Australian gender clinic under review; teenagers require court approval to transition - Judges to oversee transgender teen treatment (The Australian)

submitted by reluctant_commenter from (archive.is)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

concerns raised by a state solicitor’s office about the risk of government exposure to litigation akin to the successful case brought against Britain’s Tavistock clinic by Keira Bell, a young woman who came to regret her treatment with puberty blockers, testosterone and mastectomy.

Right, so the concerns aren't about the children being harmed, but about the potential for those harmed children to later successfully sue the government. At least we know what motivates governments to do things now.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean, you have to speak in their language.

The fact that they are recognizing the Keira Bell case as a precedent, and implicitly acknowledging that the same concerns raised in her case exist in Australia is pretty significant.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Politicians don’t care so much as long as the taxpayers pay for it.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right, so the concerns aren't about the children being harmed, but about the potential for those harmed children to later successfully sue the government.

I think it's slightly the opposite. It's the hospital shifting potential blame onto the government rather than itself.

They would do it if they weren't worried about being sued.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

direct link (has a paywall): https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/judges-to-oversee-transgender-teen-treatment/news-story/a817de7769ee196faee4f908598a66ef

Article text:

A children’s hospital gender ­clinic is under review, with ­responsibility for treatment decisions shifted to judges amid great ­secrecy and an international trend towards caution.

New patients at the gender clinic, which cannot be named for legal reasons, have to get court approval before they can go ahead with life-altering hormonal treatments that are in high demand by teenagers who identify as transgender.

The Australian understands the dramatic change followed concerns raised by a state solicitor’s office about the risk of government exposure to litigation akin to the successful case brought against Britain’s Tavistock clinic by Keira Bell, a young woman who came to regret her treatment with puberty blockers, testosterone and mastectomy.

In January, one month after the Tavistock ruling that minors would struggle to give informed consent to experimental treatment, the parents of patients at the Australian gender clinic were sent a letter warning them the need for court approval would delay a start to blockers or hormones.

University of Queensland legal academic Patrick Parkinson said it was a “very significant” turn in the gender clinic debate, likening it to the decision by the Tavistock clinic to halt new referrals for puberty blockers, and the recent policy of Sweden’s Karolinska clinic to limit all future hormonal treatment to strictly supervised clinical trials.

He said the state government was “essentially saying they are going to use the court as a safeguard”, keeping in mind the grave consequences of a mistaken decision to approve treatment with irreversible effects.

There has been a global surge in teens declaring a trans identity and telling parents they fear self-harm if unable to get blockers or hormones quickly, and clinics following the “gender affirmative” approach claim these treatments can be “life-saving”.

But the suicide narrative of ­affirmative clinicians as well as the evidence base and risks of medical interventions are under intense international scrutiny.

The move by the gender clinic was revealed in a recent decision by a state Family Court. The judge noted the Tavistock ruling was “integral” to the change.

The judge, who suppressed details of the case before her of a 16-year-old biological female wanting to begin testosterone injections to make her body masculine, noted the new policy of court approval for treatment would apply while the children’s hospital gender clinic underwent a review. Even in cases where the child was 16 or older, able to give informed consent, and parents and clinicians agreed on treatment, the hospital said it was likely to remain neutral, neither consenting nor opposing the ­application to the court.

The unidentified gender clinic appears to be the first in Australia to take the precaution of shifting responsibility from doctors back to judges when it comes to deciding if a minor is mature enough to give informed consent to treatment under the common law Gillick competency rule.

This shift to caution undercuts a long and successful campaign spearheaded by the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne to persuade Family Court judges it was safe to trust clinicians with testing the capacity of minors to understand and authorise their own medicalised gender change.

If somebody has access to the comments on the article, please feel free to share, would love to see them.

Was debating between "Transing Children" and "LGB Victory" for flairs, let me know if you think I should change it.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don’t have access to comments but there’s a lot on Facebook. I know it’s Pauline Hanson but one of her posts has 800+ comments about the article and another post has a poll with 1.6k votes.

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

Thank you!! Much appreciated, will take a look.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The unidentified gender clinic appears to be the first in Australia to take the precaution of shifting responsibility from doctors back to judges when it comes to deciding if a minor is mature enough to give informed consent to treatment under the common law Gillick competency rule.

I’d have to go back to the Bell opinion but isn’t the relevant issue that clinicians who had ample opportunity to gather evidence could not provide sufficient evidence that children under 16 were capable of giving informed consent to pharmaceutical gender transition?

It seems that in all practicality, it’s much less about letting a judge decide if a child is capable of giving consent to medical transition but putting a cog in the wheel of the one-way gender train and involving the scrutiny of a hopefully more independent and less personally interested third party. So a judge isn’t going to have unique insights in assessing competence but including a judge in the process does put unscrupulous and more activist type practitioners on notice that they are being watched and they better be cautious, discerning, and meticulous, and not recklessly push kids to medical transition while ignoring obvious red flags in the children’s profile. Because that’s what was actually happening. They were ignoring signs of autism, sexual abuse, sexual orientation distress, etc.

I see this is as very different from the abortion comparison, which is basically the opposite. A minor who wants an abortion but is denied one will have her life more fundamentally and irreversibly changed by being denied the abortion. And then you have to address the tension of holding the position that a minor may not be competent enough to get an abortion but is competent enough to have a child. The abortion comparison is just disingenuous scare tactics as far as I’m concerned.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't work in medical negligence but if I did then I would be thinking this could be good for business. I can just see the government lawyers adding up potential damages and legal costs and then multiplying them out by the hundreds of kids who get processed through these places.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have similar thoughts. This is not my area of law, but gender identity nonsense is definitely nesting within my area of law. I have to say though that I laugh when someone with pronouns in their signature still drafts documents saying things like “he or she” that makes it clear they are not true believers.

I’ve only had one incident where some woke recent college grad prepared me an analysis of meal break violations and she used “they” pronouns for everyone regardless of whether they were named Maria or Thomas. I fixed that shit lol.

Btw, are you talking about a circumstance where the government is being sued or is bringing the cases themselves?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The government operates the hospital's as I understand so they would be the plaintiff. Unless the hospitals are a seperate body. Again not my area. I was only going to point out that there is a lawyer out there thinking that this could potentially make some money.

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A minor who wants an abortion but is denied one will have her life more fundamentally and irreversibly changed by being denied the abortion.

Yep. They just use these flawed comparisons to other civil rights issues because their arguments don't hold up on their own.

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

I’d have to go back to the Bell opinion but isn’t the relevant issue that clinicians who had ample opportunity to gather evidence could not provide sufficient evidence that children under 16 were capable of giving informed consent to pharmaceutical gender transition?

It seems that in all practicality, it’s much less about letting a judge decide if a child is capable of giving consent to medical transition but putting a cog in the wheel of the one-way gender train and involving the scrutiny of a hopefully more independent and less personally interested third party.

Agreed. This is not the best-written article in regards to clarity. It's the only I've seen on this clinic in Australia, though. Hopefully more information will come out about it.

I see this is as very different from the abortion comparison, which is basically the opposite. A minor who wants an abortion but is denied one will have her life more fundamentally and irreversibly changed by being denied the abortion. And then you have to address the tension of holding the position that a minor may not be competent enough to get an abortion but is competent enough to have a child. The abortion comparison is just disingenuous scare tactics as far as I’m concerned.

Completely agree! I had not before considered the possibility that transgender transitioning might get compared to the abortion debate. The problem is that the two topics have just enough surface-level similarities that any loyal left-voter who doesn't have time or care enough to think it through, may just assume they're the the same.