Author Topic: Response to the Bell v. Tavistock Judgement  (Read 960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Megan.

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3,848
  • Reputation: +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
    • Homepage & Blog
Response to the Bell v. Tavistock Judgement
« on: December 17, 2020, 12:16:53 pm »


On December 1, 2020, the London High Court ruled (Bell v. Tavistock) that children are highly unlikely to be able to consent to taking puberty blockers. The board of directors of WPATH, EPATH, USPATH, AsiaPATH, CPATH, AusPATH and PATHA all strongly disagree with the recent judgment of the London High Court in Bell v. Tavistock. We believe this decision will result in significant harm to the affected children and their families. Therefore, a joint 'Statement Regarding Medical Affirming Treatment including Puberty Blockers for Adolescents' is now released.


One hopes the Tavistock appeal to the original hearing currently underway will heed statements like this.

Sent from my MI 9 using Tapatalk
"Life is a travelling to the edge of knowledge, then a leap taken." - D. H. Lawrence

Offline Rachel Montgomery

  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,652
  • Reputation: +28/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Response to the Bell v. Tavistock Judgement
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2020, 01:32:39 pm »
I agree that under most English based legal systems, children are highly unlikely to be able to consent to taking puberty blockers. But, I would point out that the same thing is true for many other medical procedures and treatments that children battle.   For example, a child may need chemotherapy for cancer.  The child cannot consent to that, because of the child's minority status.  But, children with cancer get medical treatment all the time.  Medically necessary treatment for minors occurs without the need for their consent (which legally they don't have the capacity to give).  Doctors and parents perform all sorts of treatments on minors without seeking the minor's consent, but surely the consent of the minor (or lack thereof) would not prevent such treatment if it was medically advised and consented to by the parents.  In fact, I would think refusal to reasonably consent could be grounds for neglect.

Puberty blockers could well be life saving, necessary treatment in some cases.  The lack of capacity to consent to treatment should not be a suicide pact.   

Offline Zumbagirl

  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
  • Reputation: +30/-0
Re: Response to the Bell v. Tavistock Judgement
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2020, 09:46:52 am »
The problem I see is that transgender is being peddled so heavily as something that is hip and trendy that it's becoming impossible to separate actual real live trans people from people who just want social media attention. Push and expect blowback. Far be it from me to disagree with the shrinks but I think the community is pushing so hard that it's going to backfire. All it's going to take is enough suicides/detransitions/people who speak out about it and watch doctors roll up the red carpets and insurance companies proclaim "yeah we need more research before we continue to fund this".

I honestly believe that there are people who could benefit from these treatments, but it should be extremely rare not every other kid.