On the court case about consent to puberty blockers:
1. They’re designed to stop puberty, prescribing them at 18 is not going to prevent puberty. They’re prescribed at the onset of puberty for obvious reasons. However....(1/n)
1. They’re designed to stop puberty, prescribing them at 18 is not going to prevent puberty. They’re prescribed at the onset of puberty for obvious reasons. However....(1/n)
2. Children & young people wait for approx 2 years to be seen by GIDS. There’s then at least a year of assessment before blockers are prescribed.
3. Hormones are only prescribed at 16 or older, when the young person has been on blockers for at least a year. (2/n)
3. Hormones are only prescribed at 16 or older, when the young person has been on blockers for at least a year. (2/n)
4. There *is* a hormone that is available to under 16s without parental consent. It’s called the contraceptive pill. It’s absolutely right that this should be the case, but the case against GIDS puts the future of this at risk. (3/n)
5. Autism doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is unable to consent. Not all autistic people have an intellectual impairment that prevents meaningful consent. Besides, ableism isn’t ok. (4/n)
6. If there was a ruling that autistic 16 and 17 years olds weren’t able to meaningfully consent, that could have implications for autistic adults (5/n)
7. Under 18s are deemed able to consent to their own medical treatment if deemed competent to do so. This is referred to as Gillick Competence. The case against GIDS puts the future of this at risk. (6/n)
8. With that in mind, GIDS are more conservative than other areas of the NHS with seeking consent - they require parental consent up to the age of 16. (7/n)
9. Regret rate for post mastectomy reconstruction in patients with breast cancer is 47%. Of course people should continue to have access to post mastectomy reconstruction, despite this regret rate. Transition related regret is 1-2%....(8/n)
...Any ruling that restricts access to medical transition based on this tiny regret rate could set a precedent for treatments with much higher regret rate.
10. To summarise: the case against GIDS is deeply flawed and could have far reaching consequences beyond trans care. (End)
10. To summarise: the case against GIDS is deeply flawed and could have far reaching consequences beyond trans care. (End)
Sources:
Transition: books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr…
Breast reconstruction: buff.ly/2AQ9RkE
GIDS procedures and practices: gids.nhs.uk
Gillick Competence: nhs.uk/conditions/con…
Contraceptive pill: nhs.uk/live-well/sexu…
Transition: books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr…
Breast reconstruction: buff.ly/2AQ9RkE
GIDS procedures and practices: gids.nhs.uk
Gillick Competence: nhs.uk/conditions/con…
Contraceptive pill: nhs.uk/live-well/sexu…
And a last minute addition to this thread:
