[ad_1]
The historic ruling due in the Keira Bell case against Tavistock and the Portman NHS Foundation Trust should come to the meaning of two words: “Informed consent”.
23-year-old Bell “consented to the health intervention,” carried out by the NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), when they prescribed puberty blockers to help her transition to a boy “based on an understanding of the benefits. and the risks involved? “?
To answer this question, it is enough to know one fact: at the time of his “consent”, Bell was 16 years old.
Six years after this gender-nonconforming child thought she had found the answer after years of “hatred of my female body” and “low self-esteem,” Bell’s problems are far from over. And although the clinic insisted that all of their patients undergo a thorough evaluation process, which was underway, Bell says it only took three one-hour appointments for the self-styled “tomboy” to be given the “tomboy”. puberty; these delay the development of signs of puberty such as breasts, periods or facial hair. They were then given cross-sex hormones and, at 20, Bell underwent a double mastectomy.
Today, Bell is left with no “breasts, deep voice, body hair, beard, impaired sexual function, and who knows what else hasn’t been discovered.” She will have to live with the fact that if she is able to have children in the future, she will not be able to breastfeed them. And all because of “a brazen decision” he told the court that he made as a teenager “trying to find confidence and happiness”.
Once again, GIDS have defended their approach, claiming to work closely with children and their families to make the right decisions for them, with less than half of those taking puberty blocking drugs or cross sex hormones , and that complete information is provided to everyone throughout the process. Only the problem is not that the Tavistock didn’t explain the risks – the possible loss of bone density, impaired fertility, poorer cognitive function and reduced height, along with the lasting psychological and emotional implications – but that a child is unable to understand them. risks.
The absorption and processing of information, after all, does not come from a list of words extracted from a disclaimer or even from the cautionary advice advanced by adults, but from life experience that Bell did not have – an of life n. 16- can own one year.
“I feel like I can say anything to myself at 16 and I might not necessarily listen at that moment,” Bell explained. “And that’s the point of this case: when you’re that young you don’t really want to listen.” In other words, a child cannot give informed consent.
Fenella Morris QC, representing the trust, said in a written statement that the youth were made fully aware of the impact of hormone blockers prior to treatment and were “provided with all necessary and appropriate information – and very considerable support to assist them in their thinking processes “.
So how did we get here? How did we get to a place where three-year-olds were encouraged to question their gender and – in 2018 – one-third of the children referred to the NHS’s only gender clinic since 2011 turned out to be autistic? How can it be that, in the United States, activists have tried to ban Abigail Shrier’s new book, Irreversible damage: the transgender mania that seduces our daughters, simply because the Wall Street Journal writer is wondering why has there been a sudden surge of those who present themselves as trans and have raised mental health concerns of teenage girls? Indeed, it is considered “brave” by its publisher, Swift, to move forward with its UK publication next month.
The answer is fear. Too frightened to question the instinctive reactions of a health system bent on intervening and terrified of being labeled “transphobic”, we have disappointed children like Bell and another woman’s autistic 16-year-old daughter, “Mrs. joined her in her challenge to the High Court this week – with our silence.
Focusing on “detransitioners” – those who wish they hadn’t undergone gender change surgery – when trans people are still struggling for fair acceptance and often face stigma, anger, disbelief and online trolling is inherently problematic . Yet Bell is not alone in her experience.
Over the past five years, an increasing number of women and men have shared similar stories only to encounter the same stigma, anger, disbelief and trolling; and if the High Court rules in Bell’s favor, it seems likely that more will be done. Their experiences are as valid and important as the experiences of many who have found gender reassignment not just a liberation but a lifesaver and have never regretted their decision.
That’s why, if I were Bell’s attorneys, I’d make this my closing statement. Take the word “trans” – with all the emotions and controversies associated with it – out of the equation for a moment. Put aside your ethical, political and religious beliefs and simply ask yourself this: when the Ministry of Health recommends that both body piercing studios and tattoo shops get parental consent before working on anyone under the age of 18 and when it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18. age 18 to gamble, buy cigarettes, alcohol, fireworks or pornography, should a child be encouraged and enabled to make a life-changing decision before reaching adulthood?
Read Celia Walden every Monday at 7pm on Telegraph.co.uk
.
[ad_2]
Source link
