Thread by @SVPhillimore

Reminder. To assess if a child under 16 has ‘Gillick competence’ to consent to medical treatment is a highly fact specific assessment of an individual child, which must examine their understanding of the nature and consequences of the treatment.

https://twitter.com/inspirationname/status/1438764588347105280

No court can make a blanket decision that children of a certain age can or cannot consent - that would need an Act of Parliament. The High Court in Bell did NOT say children under 16 could NEVER consent to medical transition - they said it was ‘unlikely’.

It is utterly impossible that the Court of Appeal will say ‘hey kids, you rush out and get your puberty blockers now, it’s all good!’ That would be contrary to Supreme Court ruling in Gillick as well as offensive to sense.

What is suspect will happen is that decision making re capacity will return to clinicians and patients but with clear and focused warning about the imperative necessity of proper assessment of Gillick competence.

So doctors who do NOT reassure themselves of their patient’s ‘authentic and enduring’ consent will I hope be struck off. As this would be a prime example of unethical and dangerous behaviour.

I have written more about Gillick competence and informed consent here, if helpful.
tinyurl.com/tzxj99s

There seems to be huge misunderstanding and misconceptions about 'Gillick competence' - that it is somehow a 'green light' for treatment? All it means is that a child MAY be able to consent IF they understand what they are consenting to. Child MUST be assessed.