you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

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

    Yeah. They didn't say these kids are mature enough to consent; just that it's a not a matter for the courts. Which itself goes against Gillick, where it was deemed appropriate for the court to make a ruling on a medical matter.