Overturned ruling on puberty-blocking drugs is good news for trans kids

The Tavistock Centre building
Support us and go ad-free

An NHS trust has won a Court of Appeal bid to overturn a landmark ruling over the use of puberty-blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria.

Victory for trans children

Last year, the High Court ruled it was “highly unlikely” that a child aged 13 or under would be able to consent to the hormone-blocking treatment. And it said that it was “very doubtful” a child of 14 or 15 would understand the long-term consequences. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust brought an appeal against the ruling in June. The trust runs the UK’s only gender identity development service for children.

In a judgment on 17 September, the Court of Appeal said that it was “inappropriate” for the High Court to have given the guidance. And the court found that it is up to doctors to “exercise their judgment” about whether their patients can properly consent.

In their ruling, the lord chief justice Burnett, sitting with Geoffrey Vos and lady justice King, said:

The court was not in a position to generalise about the capability of persons of different ages to understand what is necessary for them to be competent to consent to the administration of puberty blockers.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Burnett added:

It placed patients, parents and clinicians in a very difficult position.

Denied treatment

The Court of Appeal found that this recommendation would have practically denied treatment “in many circumstances” if patients didn’t have the resources to go to court. However, Burnett said there may be occasions where an application to the court may be appropriate, for example, if there’s a dispute between doctors or parents.

The three senior judges also found that the High Court’s guidance would require doctors “to suspend, or at least temper, their clinical judgment and defer to what amounts to the clinical judgment of the court”. Burnett concluded:

Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment

The judges also said that treating children for gender dysphoria is “controversial” and subject to “intense professional and public debate”. Burnett added:

Such debate, when it spills into legal proceedings, is apt to obscure the role of the courts in deciding discrete legal issues

Potential appeal

The original case was brought by Keira Bell. Bell is a 24-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers when she was 16, before later “detransitioning”. She’s also the mother of a teenager who is on the waiting list for treatment.

Following the ruling, Bell said she was “surprised and disappointed” in the decision. But she said she had no regrets in bringing the case, adding:

It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me

Adding that she believed the medical service had become “politicised”, Bell said she will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Clinical judgement

During the two-day appeal earlier in 2021, the Tavistock’s lawyers argued that the ruling was “inconsistent” with the concept that young people may be able to consent to their own medical treatment, known as Gillick after a case about access to the contraceptive pill for under 16s in the 1980s.

The Court of Appeal highlighted the similarities between the cases, adding:

Nothing about the nature or implications of the treatment with puberty blockers allows for a real distinction to be made between the consideration of contraception in Gillick and of puberty blockers in this case bearing in mind that, when Gillick was decided 35 years ago, the issues it raised in respect of contraception for the under-16s were highly controversial in a way that is now hard to imagine.

Tavistock welcomed the judgement. A trust spokesperson said:

The judgment upholds established legal principles which respect the ability of our clinicians to engage actively and thoughtfully with our patients in decisions about their care and futures.

It affirms that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment.

We recognise the work we do is complex and, working with our partners, we are committed to continue to improve the quality of care and decision making for our patients and to strengthen the evidence base in this developing area of care.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. We have to wait to age 18 to buy a beer in a pub.
      We have to wait to age 18 to buy a packet of cigarettes in a shop.
      We have to be 18 AND have ID to buy BOOT POLISH in a supermarket.

      It’s not a bad thing to say that CHANGING YOUR GENDER should be an adult choice.

      I’m fully behind transrights. But this is a life-changing choice that should be made upon reaching adulthood.

      I’m sure some would feel this is an imposition. If a 10 yr old wanted a large spider tattoo over her entire face, and doctors ‘were OK with that’, the law would still (rightly) prevent it. If *I* had wanted a large facial tattoo of a spider at age 10, I’d be indignant I wasn’t allowed to do so. However, upon maturity I might be glad of that earlier restriction.

      It is every person’s RIGHT to transition if they want, and to be treated equally and fairly. But this is a choice to make upon reaching Adulthood.

    2. I understand gender dysphoria perfectly well from experience, but the notion of ‘trans kids’ is faulty, a very serious misnomer. You can no more have trans kids than Muslim or Christian children – there are children of Muslim and Christian parents, and there are children of a society that has regressed to the point where socialisation is so oppressive that a perversely binary conception of gender and a conflation of sex and gender is seen to provide the resolution.

      This is massively irresponsible and insulting to Keira Bell, who has been de-validated and silenced, made a casualty really, and to the many women whose academic work and experience is dismissed by the confused consensus being pushed through, which largely rests on assenting to the viewpoints of the young and culturally just plain naive, for which they themselves can be forgiven. The older generation that should be asserting hard-won rationale is ashamed of ideas that were worked towards for centuries and that were then dismantled, at the end of the day by reactionaries, so that we are now like parents manipulated into compensating children with gifts when there is something apparently insoluble behind the want.

      How does the binary conception of gender coexist with the conception of gender non-binary people subscribe to? The latter at least seems philosophically literate and potentially a political gesture, a refusal even if many of us have gone through life living without having our behaviour prescribed without the need for an announcement?

      We should if we care about these children’s pain be creating forms of socialisation that allow us all to flourish authentically with acceptance of the still inescapable physical boundaries of our individuality, not celebrating half-formed and often unwittingly parodic fantasy put in its place.

    3. I think we should also remember that if someone transitions, they will rely on hormone treatment for the rest of their lives, weather they transition as children or adults. Great news for the big pharmaceutical companies who often have politicians in their pockets. Puberty blockers in the UK cost about £100 a month but in US can cost $1,200 a month, and doctors do not know the long term effects, so it is experimental.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.