Thread by @P_Ratchford

Long Thread. Thoughts on the fascinating case of A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 254.

Freedom of expression is under attack in British Columbia.

Society (and now our courts) have equated speech with violence.

Conflating speech with violence logically leads to censorship.

This case led to duelling rallies at Vancouver's Art Gallery on Saturday from activist groups.

straight.com/life/1255951/o…

A.B. v. C.D. is a case that involves a 14 year old child who the courts have ordered can begin cross-sex hormone treatments despite the fathers objection.

bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/…

Three key questions arise from this case.

1. Was Judge Bowden correct to rule the child can solely consent?
2. Is the treatment in the best interest of the child?
3. Should the father be arrested for speaking to third parties about his opposition to the ruling?

The Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed a “mature minor” doctrine and there is no set age at which a child can give consent for medical treatment. Age is not in and of itself should not preclude a minor from consenting to a needed medical therapy.

Unfortunately, there are no studies showing the long-term result of hormone treatments on adolescents who have gender dysphoria. Hormone treatments on children aged 14 years of age and younger is quite new.

By the courts own admission Justice Bowden did not weigh significantly expert opinions given by Dr. Van Meter and Dr. Grossman.

Dr. Van Meter and Dr Grossman expressed concerns regarding the underlying science in support of gender transition treatment, the profound harms that the child can expect to experience, and the unsatisfactory outcomes that have been reported concerning the treatment.

Justice Bowden said,

"While they are both experts in their fields, and express views that indicate risks associated with transition treatment, neither of them comment on the particular facts of A.B.’s case which include his risk of attempting suicide."

"Their views are of such a generic nature that they are of little use in evaluating the best interests of A.B.”

It should also be noted that lawyer Carey Linde has filed a complaint on behalf of the father with the College of Psychologists of British Columbia against the psychologist who initially assessed the child.

thetelegram.com/news/canada/le…

The psychologist who assessed A.B was also quoted as saying at a public event, “So what you need is, you know what? Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, they will give you what you need”.

From an ethical standpoint, the expected outcome of a treatment seems relevant to weighing the interests of the child and government authority over that of the parents.

It’s rational the state’s authority to intervene decreases as the risk to the child increases and the benefits of medical treatment decrease.

One could consider this situation analogous to the state intervening against parents’ wishes to allow a clinical trial to proceed on a minor without the parents consent.

The medical outcome of the clinical trial may be positive but it lacks a strong body of supporting evidence to prove this is the case. The possibility of serious unforeseen negative health consequences should also not be discounted.

The CPS statement on medical decision making in paediatrics says, “When risks are minimal and the benefits of a proposed therapy are clear, for example, when considering treatment for a local infection, a 14-year-old may have sufficient capacity to understand and consent.

But when refusing experimental chemotherapy, the same patient might not have the capacity to reason through the complex issues involved.”

cps.ca/en/documents/p…

In the case of A.B. dealing with a difficult decision on whether to consent to hormone therapy or not, analyzing early stage research on cross-hormone treatments for adolescents to come to an informed decision on potential benefits and risks associated

@threadreaderapp "unroll"