Hi Elle, I'm currently writing my Masters dissertation on this case and I was wondering if you have any academia recommendations (Ie journal articles, academic comment etc)? Great video BTW :) Thanks x
I am writing my undergraduate thesis in Gender, Sexuality, Feminist, and Social Justice Studies about the work of the organization Transgender Trend and this case is a very important part of it. Thank you so much for this video -- it really cleared things up and helped me better understand everything about the case!
This has made my day! I’m so glad it was useful - judgments are still hard to understand for me after 4 years of legal study so I’m really glad that this video made sense! Best of luck with your thesis - that’s a really interesting and important topic to be researching.
Informative but children really can't consent. It has nothing to do with knowledge but they are simply not old enough to consent. An under 18 can have all the knowledge in the world about sex and the risks that comes with it but it would still be illegal simply because they would still not be old enough for sex as it should be.
Correct . The whole realm of transition is filled with terms and ideas that adults struggle to understand , let alone for a child to appreciate the long term effects of drugs on their bodies and their long turn goals .
@@mushroomgal9614 correct. That’s why they have these strange people who the state did not authorise who never the less have the right to make these decisions for them . They are called parents .
@@mushroomgal9614 no . I am saying it must be the overriding and deciding factor . Children cannot give consent for major life changing decisions like this . There are risks with all kind of surgery or medical treatments . But ones decided purely by a child’s subjective feelings about who they think they are or ought to be is fraught with dangers far beyond the risks embedded in the treatment itself
@@mushroomgal9614 ok let’s play the “ what if “ game . Scenario 1. It’s the parents right and authority to decide whether to agree to any surgery or procedure , but as in everything in life , there may be exceptions like for example the child is in imminent risk of injury or death . So what should happen ? The health authority should make an application to the court setting out the evidence for the imminent serious risk and then a court should decide the matter as to whether or not the parental rights should be overruled in favour of the treatment . Scenario 2 suicidal teenager . If all other therapies , treatments are discussed and explored and the medical opinion is that ONLY antidepressants will help but the parents refuse . Make an application to the court as in scenario 1. It is not the same as gender dysphoria because puberty blockers are NOT. Antidepressants . They delay the onset of puberty but more importantly start a child down a path that is ideologically loaded ,that usually leads to surgical irreparable alterations further on and damage to perfectly healthy functional normal body parts . And all this to remedy a psychological condition loaded with incoherent ideology that often continues after the surgery . The issues about what boys and girls are and men and women are often continue unresolved years after surgery . Parents don’t make medical decisions for their children upon whims . Sadly this is the depth of thought that leads to legislation handing over adult parental decision giving power to immature , often psychologically distressed children . Neither should public policy on medical consent be based upon exceptions . In almost every case , parents have their child’s best interest at heart . And in those exceptions where they may not , the courts should be invoked . Messing with parental responsibility is a very dangerous game to play .
@@mushroomgal9614 ok let’s play . Scenario 1 . If any child is in immediate and imminent risk of serious injury or death then you don’t need either their consent or their parents consent or anyone else’s consent to act to to avert the “imminent and immediate death or injury . You just act and deal with the consequences after and a court will then decide if in fact your assessment was reasonable and proportionate . The risk lies with you . Psychological distress cannot meet that criteria because doctors can section someone that is at risk of harming themselves or others under various mental health acts . And that assessment to section still can be challenged by courts or tribunals . Your second scenario involves a medical opinion . You say this child can’t be helped with just therapy alone . Who says ? That’s a medical opinion . You also claim that the child’s mental health is suffering and the puberty blockers will help their mental distress . There is no circumstances where that medical opinion cannot be put to a court if the medical professionals believes that overriding the parents objection is necessary for the child’s mental health . There is no grounds to give doctors the power to prescribe drugs just because in their professional opinion they should . If you think laws should protect the most vulnerable , then who can be more vulnerable than a child in distress and a doctor prescribing drugs knowing the child is incapable of giving consent ( because they are a child ) ?? This is not rocket science . There have to be very strong reasons to override parental authority . In my view your scenarios don’t meet that standard . “Abusive parents” are the exception . They are not the norm . What you are doing is redefining “abusive parents “ with parents that disagree with their child’s notions of what’s best for them . The law HAS to start with the assumption that parents have their best interest at heart . The state don’t raise children , feed children or cloth children . The parents have that responsibility and they do not need a court order granting them that authority . It is theirs by definition as parents . I don’t know why you have inserted that the parents might act in their own best interest rather than their child’s . I don’t see how a parent can act in their own best interest concerning their child’s medical treatment . Unless the treatment is NOT medically necessary . I thought we were just talking about a difference in opinion of what the child’s best interest are ? You are suggesting supplanting the parent authority with a court appointed guardian at the outset ? Surely that should necessitate a court order anyway ? Court appointed Guardian’ are used usually when the parents cannot agree on what’s in the best interests of a child . Generally the state stays out of family decisions and that’s the way it should be . The state is rarely a better substitute parent or co parent . You are almost admitting that the child is incapable of giving consent to the medical treatment hence the need for a guardian. Bingo !! Just call the guardian parents . I know it’s a novel idea …. The only time the state should be involved in medical decisions about your child is when a court order is granted to involve them . The state is already ideologically pre disposed to the incoherent gender / transgender ideology . It’s a social experiment that we will understand the consequences in the years to come .
Thank you so much for this video!! (a very stressed out Belgian law student who has a Legal English exam in a few hours)
Hi Elle, I'm currently writing my Masters dissertation on this case and I was wondering if you have any academia recommendations (Ie journal articles, academic comment etc)? Great video BTW :) Thanks x
I am writing my undergraduate thesis in Gender, Sexuality, Feminist, and Social Justice Studies about the work of the organization Transgender Trend and this case is a very important part of it. Thank you so much for this video -- it really cleared things up and helped me better understand everything about the case!
This has made my day! I’m so glad it was useful - judgments are still hard to understand for me after 4 years of legal study so I’m really glad that this video made sense! Best of luck with your thesis - that’s a really interesting and important topic to be researching.
Puberty blockers is chemical weapon germany was planning to use it against its enemies.
Informative but children really can't consent. It has nothing to do with knowledge but they are simply not old enough to consent. An under 18 can have all the knowledge in the world about sex and the risks that comes with it but it would still be illegal simply because they would still not be old enough for sex as it should be.
Correct . The whole realm of transition is filled with terms and ideas that adults struggle to understand , let alone for a child to appreciate the long term effects of drugs on their bodies and their long turn goals .
@@mushroomgal9614 correct. That’s why they have these strange people who the state did not authorise who never the less have the right to make these decisions for them .
They are called parents .
@@mushroomgal9614 no . I am saying it must be the overriding and deciding factor . Children cannot give consent for major life changing decisions like this . There are risks with all kind of surgery or medical treatments . But ones decided purely by a child’s subjective feelings about who they think they are or ought to be is fraught with dangers far beyond the risks embedded in the treatment itself
@@mushroomgal9614 ok let’s play the “ what if “ game .
Scenario 1. It’s the parents right and authority to decide whether to agree to any surgery or procedure , but as in everything in life , there may be exceptions like for example the child is in imminent risk of injury or death . So what should happen ? The health authority should make an application to the court setting out the evidence for the imminent serious risk and then a court should decide the matter as to whether or not the parental rights should be overruled in favour of the treatment .
Scenario 2 suicidal teenager . If all other therapies , treatments are discussed and explored and the medical opinion is that ONLY antidepressants will help but the parents refuse . Make an application to the court as in scenario 1. It is not the same as gender dysphoria because puberty blockers are NOT. Antidepressants .
They delay the onset of puberty but more importantly start a child down a path that is ideologically loaded ,that usually leads to surgical irreparable alterations further on and damage to perfectly healthy functional normal body parts .
And all this to remedy a psychological condition loaded with incoherent ideology that often continues after the surgery . The issues about what boys and girls are and men and women are often continue unresolved years after surgery .
Parents don’t make medical decisions for their children upon whims . Sadly this is the depth of thought that leads to legislation handing over adult parental decision giving power to immature , often psychologically distressed children .
Neither should public policy on medical consent be based upon exceptions .
In almost every case , parents have their child’s best interest at heart . And in those exceptions where they may not , the courts should be invoked . Messing with parental responsibility is a very dangerous game to play .
@@mushroomgal9614 ok let’s play .
Scenario 1 . If any child is in immediate and imminent risk of serious injury or death then you don’t need either their consent or their parents consent or anyone else’s consent to act to to avert the “imminent and immediate death or injury . You just act and deal with the consequences after and a court will then decide if in fact your assessment was reasonable and proportionate .
The risk lies with you .
Psychological distress cannot meet that criteria because doctors can section someone that is at risk of harming themselves or others under various mental health acts . And that assessment to section still can be challenged by courts or tribunals .
Your second scenario involves a medical opinion . You say this child can’t be helped with just therapy alone . Who says ? That’s a medical opinion .
You also claim that the child’s mental health is suffering and the puberty blockers will help their mental distress . There is no circumstances where that medical opinion cannot be put to a court if the medical professionals believes that overriding the parents objection is necessary for the child’s mental health . There is no grounds to give doctors the power to prescribe drugs just because in their professional opinion they should . If you think laws should protect the most vulnerable , then who can be more vulnerable than a child in distress and a doctor prescribing drugs knowing the child is incapable of giving consent ( because they are a child ) ?? This is not rocket science .
There have to be very strong reasons to override parental authority . In my view your scenarios don’t meet that standard .
“Abusive parents” are the exception . They are not the norm . What you are doing is redefining “abusive parents “ with parents that disagree with their child’s notions of what’s best for them .
The law HAS to start with the assumption that parents have their best interest at heart . The state don’t raise children , feed children or cloth children . The parents have that responsibility and they do not need a court order granting them that authority . It is theirs by definition as parents .
I don’t know why you have inserted that the parents might act in their own best interest rather than their child’s . I don’t see how a parent can act in their own best interest concerning their child’s medical treatment . Unless the treatment is NOT medically necessary . I thought we were just talking about a difference in opinion of what the child’s best interest are ?
You are suggesting supplanting the parent authority with a court appointed guardian at the outset ?
Surely that should necessitate a court order anyway ?
Court appointed Guardian’ are used usually when the parents cannot agree on what’s in the best interests of a child . Generally the state stays out of family decisions and that’s the way it should be . The state is rarely a better substitute parent or co parent .
You are almost admitting that the child is incapable of giving consent to the medical treatment hence the need for a guardian.
Bingo !! Just call the guardian parents . I know it’s a novel idea ….
The only time the state should be involved in medical decisions about your child is when a court order is granted to involve them .
The state is already ideologically pre disposed to the incoherent gender / transgender ideology . It’s a social experiment that we will understand the consequences in the years to come .
Great video as always Elle
This is a purely academic issue given that puberty blockers are not available in Britain within the context of concerns around gender identity.
Thanks very informative