Transing ChildrenMore info about the Bell appeal

submitted by HelloMomo from self.LGBDropTheT

https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/09/understanding-the-appeal-in-bell-v-tavistock-legal-analysis-by-lgn-legal-commentator-dennis-kavanagh/

Here's a legal analysis of the appeal against Bell by the LGN's non-practising barrister, legal insight guy

In essence, this is a judgment about how judicial review operates, not a statement as to the wisdom or morality of prescribing puberty blockers. In a clear statement indicating the court would not stray into political questions, the Lord Chief Justice ruled, “The treatment of children for gender dysphoria is controversial. Medical opinion is far from unanimous about the wisdom of embarking on treatment before adulthood. The question raises not only clinical medical issues but also moral and ethical issues, all of which are the subject of intense professional and public debate. Such debate, when it spills into legal proceedings, is apt to obscure the role of the courts in deciding discrete legal issues.”

Framing the prescription of puberty blockers as lawful (there being no general challenge in principle to such prescriptions in some cases), the Court of Appeal rationalised the appeal first as a failed judicial review inasmuch as it made no general claim of unlawful behaviour. If the Supreme Court hears the case, this may be a point taken on appeal as it could be said to amount to the Court simply asking, “Is a lawful policy lawful?” That stands in stark contrast to the High Court’s original ruling which asked the question of whether a child could ever meaningfully understand what loss of sexual function and lifelong sterility meant. This marks a fundamental difference in approach, with the Court of Appeal assuming a child can give fully informed consent (and therefore be what is known in law as “Gillick competent”) and the High Court doubting that a child as young as 10 could make such decisions. Where the High Court took on the role of protecting children, the Court of Appeal left the question of any harm done to a child to clinical negligence actions after the fact of treatment.

all 2 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Where the High Court took on the role of protecting children, the Court of Appeal left the question of any harm done to a child to clinical negligence actions after the fact of treatment.

This doesn't make any sense!

In this case, the harm done was a direct result of the treatment itself, not a matter of negligence or lack thereof. The changes resulting from testosterone use on females are permanent no matter which voodoo the gender therapist pulls of their ass (it's always good to remember that transgender treatment in general is more ideology than science).

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

Where the High Court took on the role of protecting children, the Court of Appeal left the question of any harm done to a child to clinical negligence actions after the fact of treatment.

This is like saying that we shouldn't work to prevent arson, we should leave the question of any criminality in loss of life and property until after the fire has run its course.