Transing ChildrenThe Court of Appeal has overturned Kiera Bell's ruling

submitted by HelloMomo from thenational.scot

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MyLongestJourney 29 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 0 fun30 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well shit. How many minors must be irreversibly harmed before this madness is stopped ?

[–][deleted] 28 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 0 fun29 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's horrible. Doctors clearly aren't capable of exercising judgement, that's why Kiera Bell is suing in the first place.

[–]HelloMomo[S] 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My understanding is that Kiera Bell's case was in the High Court, this was in the Court of Appeal, and Kiera is now going to take it to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the UK, and that will be the final trial. Is this correct? Could a Brit explain the UK process a bit more?

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

I'm a Brit but not a legal person. I think if she wants to take it further her team have to apply to the court to be granted leave to appeal just as the Tavi did on the previous judgement. I think you have to outline the basis upon which you want to appeal further. I believe an application to appeal can be turned down if it's felt to not have merit at which point the most recent judgement stands.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I heard there's a precedent factor here, which in the way the ruling was done, would end up affecting not only hormone blockers and transition procedures, but also other health care interventions to kids.

Could someone clarify if this is the case?

[–]HelloMomo[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

(my knowledge of this is patchy, so take this all with a grain of salt, but)

They talk a lot about "Gillick competence", which originates from a case in the 80s regarding whether girls under 16 could consent to their own medical treatment regarding the contraceptive pill. In the Gillick case, it was decided that they could. This means that parents don't have to approve, or even know, of their daughter getting birth control pills.

It's not the most talked about aspect, but I think (?) that kids circumventing their parents was an issue in the Bell case too. I think that's what Mrs A's case was about, her autistic daughter trying to transition against her mother's wishes?

Anyways, they cite Gillick as a precedent of under-16-year-olds having the power to make their own medical decisions (pretending that all medical decisions are created equal).

But Gillick never said all under 16s can consent to anything. The quote from that case is:

As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

The original Bell case fit within that Gillick ruling. They decided that these kids don't meet the bar of "sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed"

It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting to know, so the precedent being set is kids are barred from circumventing parental consent from any surgical procedure they can't fully understand, with medical transitioning being one of those.

No problem here then!

[–]Rag3 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for this explanation.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fortunately things are taking a better turn in Australia and New Zealand, despite the best efforts of TRAs and their handmaidens.

[–]Rag3 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m keeping my eyes on NZ. I think their gov decides about self ID laws soon.

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

Thank you for sharing. Maybe worth its own post?

[–]Movellon 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This was always going to end up at the supreme court.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ms Bell said she now intends to ask the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Well, it sounds like she is planning to challenge this. Godspeed Keira.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do so many assholes in government think it's a bad thing to limit exposure of puberty blockers for children?