UK: Ruling on puberty blockers sets dangerous precedent – LGBT campaigners

A landmark ruling at the High Court over the use of puberty blockers sets a “dangerous precedent” for all young people accessing medical treatment, LGBT campaigners have warned.

On Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, ruled children under 16 can only consent to having puberty blockers if they are able to understand the nature of the treatment. However, the judges said in their ruling: “It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.

Speaking after the judgment, Lui Asquith, from the trans children’s charity Mermaids, told the PA news agency the ruling was a “potential catastrophe” for trans young people.

They added: “It cannot be exaggerated the impact that this might have, not only on the population of trans young people that require hormone blockers, but it may potentially open the floodgates towards other questions around bodily autonomy and who has the right to govern their own body.”

LGBT charity Stonewall said the ruling was “deeply concerning and shocking”, arguing it could have a “significant chilling effect” on young trans people’s ability to access timely medical support. Nancy Kelley, the charity’s chief executive, added the judgment provides a “green light” to those who want to roll back the healthcare rights of all young people, potentially including rights to abortion and contraception.

She said: “Today’s (Tuesday) ruling sets a dangerous precedent not just for the rights of trans young people, but for all young people. Not only do we disagree that trans young people cannot understand the implications of treatment, but we’re worried this judgment risks eroding Gillick competency more broadly.”

Gillick competence refers to a 1985 judgement of the House of Lords, which is considered if a child wishes to receive medical treatment without their parents’ consent or knowledge.

Ms Kelley continued: “Gillick established that people under the age of 16 can be capable of sufficiently understanding and consenting to medical treatments, like abortion or contraception, including understanding their long-term physical and psychological consequences. Read more via Glasgow Times