Hormones to children: UK judges wash their hands of them. Court of Appeal ruling on Keira Bell case

In response to the Tavistock Clinic's appeal on the Keira Bell ruling, the Court threw the ball back to the doctors: it is they, not the courts, who must decide whether a minor is able to give consent to experimental 'therapy' that blocks development and initiates transition. But the debate is now open. And the fear of lawsuits by repentant minors -detransitioners- induces the medical class to caution.
Please be aware that the translation of contents, although automatic, has a cost to Feminist Post but is provided to you without any charge. Please consider making a contribution via the "Support us" page if you intend to use our translation service intensively.
The contents of this site are translated using automatic translation systems without the intervention of professional translators.
Translations are provided for the sole purpose of facilitating reading by international visitors.
Share this article

The English Court of Appeal partially overturned the judgement that had found in favour of the young detransitioner Keira Bell (here her story) against the Tavistock Clinic, which had rushed her into puberty blocker therapy when she was 16.

With a pilatesque judgment and merely formalistic, the Court threw the ball back to the doctorsIt is up to them, and not to the courts, to decide whether a minor can have access to this 'therapy' with hormone blockers. Doctors and not judges must take responsibility for deciding. whether or not the child has what is known as the Gillick Competence, or the maturity to assess the consequences of hormone treatments, which are irreversible.

Transactivists welcomed the ruling, but the time of easy transitions for minors is over anyway. As we are seeing all over the world (read here) in the face of the increasing number of gender non-conforming former children who, once adults, regret the irreversible changes caused by puberty blockers, especially Faced with the risk of lawsuits for damages -follow the money- more and more doctors and clinics are adopting a principle of caution. Thus it will be increasingly difficult for a child under 16 to be experimentally initiated into transition according to the 'affirmation only' principle - in essence, blockers are not denied to anyone-. In short, the number of children treated with blockers will in any case decrease.

The era of acting in a derelict manner to follow an ideology and not correct medical practice is over. Keira Bell, who asked to be allowed to address the Supreme Court, commented: "My case has opened a global debate, although much remains to be done. It is a deeply disturbing fantasy that a doctor could believe that a 10-year-old child could consent to the loss of his or her own fertility".

Marina Terragni


The following is the comment from the website Transgendertrend after the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

We are disconcerted by the decision in which the Court of Appeal today upheld Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust's appeal against the first instance decision of the Court of Justice in London in the case of Bell and Mrs A v Tavistock.

The appeal was upheld on the basis that the Court of First Instance did not rule that the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria was unlawful, and that the ruling and directions issued by the Court of First Instance related to contested facts, expert evidence and medical opinions that could not be examined and assessed in court proceedings.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the principles expressed in the GILLICK case are based on medical assessments, and it is not for the court to decide on the capacity of children under 16 to give valid consent to medical treatment.

Underlying the Tavistock appeal is the argument that, in its judgment, the Court of First Instance relied on the principles set out in the Gillick case, which state that children under the age of 16 are capable of making valid decisions if deemed competent to do so by their treating doctor after a specific individual assessment.

Tavistock had objected that the Court '.trespassed into the area of decision-making reserved for doctors, patients and their parents, where it had not previously ventured.".

In essence, the Court of Appeal held that "the Court of First Instance ruled on an improper restriction on the use of the Gillick competency tests"

The appeal judges rejected the idea that the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is a borderline case.

In paragraph 76 of the judgment it is even stated that consent to puberty blockers is no different to consent to contraception:

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

On the whole, the judgement, while paying lip service to the fact that there are widespread opposing views on the issue, takes Tavistock's evidence at face value without elaborating.

For example: the assertion that only 16% of children are subsequently treated with puberty blockers when in earlier testimony Dr Polly Carmichael suggested that the percentage overall is rather 41-45%; the assertion that only 55% of children treated with puberty blockers then go on to treatment with hormones of the opposite sex when on the same GIDS site the percentage indicated is 98%; and the assertion that "the primary purpose of puberty blockers was to give the patient time to reflect on his or her gender identity" e "treatment with puberty blockers was separated from subsequent treatment with opposite-sex hormones"when the Health Research Authority, in its reviews of Tavistock's Early Intervention studies, determined:

"Confusion would have been reduced if the description of the purpose of the treatment had made it clear that it was offered specifically to children who demonstrated strong and persistent gender dysphoria at an early stage of puberty, so that the suppression of puberty itself would allow subsequent treatment with hormones of the opposite sex to avoid resorting to surgery to change or otherwise mask the undesirable physical effects of puberty in the birth gender."

Although much emphasis has been placed on the consideration that it is not the role of the courts to evaluate medical evidence, it is inevitable that the courts will be influenced by the evidence made available to them.

In the case of puberty blockers, the evidence (provided by Tavistock) is weak, the ethical considerations involved very serious, and in any case Tavistock has never made available alternative, less invasive treatments. Not even the supervisory bodies have ever questioned the ideological basis of the 'affirmative' approach.

The first instance judgment in Bell & Mrs A v Tavistock is quoted extensively from the Court of Appeal's decision and none of its points are contested except from a purely legal/formal point of view.

All 'concerns' still exist.

The Court of Appeal states:

"Doctors will inevitably have to take great care before prescribing treatment to a child, and be wise enough to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents has been preceded by adequate information about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed treatment, in the light of evolving research, and a clear understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick has made clear, doctors may still be subject to disciplinary and civil action when problems arise in individual cases."

The original court ruling and subsequent appeal brought the issue of puberty prevention in children into the public eye, and the attention of the medical and political world.

Keira Bell opened the confrontation.

Authorisation for further appeal to the Supreme Court will be sought.

(translation by La Crissy)

here the original article

here the High Court ruling


Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding.
If you think our work can be useful for your life, we will be grateful for even the smallest contribution.

You can give us your contribution by clicking here: Patreon - Feminist Post
   - or -
You can send to: ASSOCIAZIONE CULTURALE BLU BRAMANTE
Obligatory reason: FEMINIST POST
IBAN: IT80C0200812914000104838541
You might also be interested in
29 June 2022
School ends, forced withdrawals of children begin again
Despite a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation defining the forced removal of minors as 'outside the rule of law', this morning in the province of Lodi an 11-year-old boy was snatched from his mother, who was forcibly and deceptively detained while her son was taken. Here is how the events unfolded in the account of a witness
This morning in the province of Lodi, in Casalmaiocco, an 11-year-old boy, Gioele, was forcibly snatched and suddenly and traumatically removed from the mother with whom he was living. Here are the facts as told by a MaternaMente activist present at the time: 'Deborah and her son had been summoned for a meeting by the social services this morning. The meeting took place online and the SS used reassuring tones. The mother then went to the municipality to [...].
Read now
27 June 2022
New England Journal of Medicine: abortion ban is a health catastrophe
The prestigious magazine raises the alarm: it will be mainly poor and black women who will pay the price of the Supreme Court ruling, driven back into abortion with serious health risks. Even the morning-after pill and even the IUD could be banned and prosecuted as abortifacient means
The US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization represents an extraordinary reversal (...) Yet it was not unexpected. In the long and painful prelude to the decision, many states severely restricted access to reproductive health care. The fig leaf covering these restrictions was that induced abortion was a dangerous procedure that required stricter regulation to protect the health of women seeking such care. The facts belie this false rhetoric. The latest data available in the United States [...]
Read now
27 June 2022
How they won the war against Roe
Failure to turn Roe v. Wade into law was the capital mistake of the American left, starting with Barack Obama. Abortion was an entirely secondary issue for trans-politics-absorbed liberals, who have spent years erasing the word 'woman' by renaming it as 'menstruator' and 'uterus carrier', rather than addressing women's rights
How did American pro-lifers win the war against Roe v. Wade? In the article of which we present you with extended excerpts, journalist Sarah Ditum explains how the Democrats' neglect and arrogance unwittingly helped set women's rights in America back 50 years. "When did it become certain that American women's right to abortion would be revoked? The Supreme Court's ruling that "Roe was terribly wrong from the start" leaked almost two months ago, [...]
Read now
25 June 2022
US midterm elections: will women be decisive after the abortion ruling?
What will American women do now? Will they win solidarity among themselves, as they have always won in Italy over abortion? Or will they settle into opposing sides in a quasi-civil war? The November vote will be the first test. Women could form the strong core of that moderate front that cannot find political expression in the US
What will American women do now? Will they win solidarity among themselves, as they have always won in Italy with regard to abortion, holding together Catholics and agnostics, left-wing and right-wing women in defence of law 194/78? Or will they settle into opposing camps, to put it mildly, the quasi-civil war underway in the United States? The midterm elections in November, with the Republicans as favourites, will be the first test: how many female voters, albeit [...].
Read now
23 June 2022
Trans issue: change of wind among progressives
The 'la' is given by the American Democrats, but also in the rest of the West the trans-filia of the progressives is beginning to show signs of breaking down. Electoral opportunism, sure. But the change must be registered. Keeping our eyes wide open
Michele Serra is a friend and I appreciate very much that he has taken it upon himself to break the silence from the left -finally- on the unbearable injustice of male bodies in women's sports (L'Amaca in La Repubblica yesterday, 22 June), an injustice against which we have been fighting for a long time (here you will find an infinity of texts on this subject). A note, if possible: I would have avoided using the woke cisgender definition, imposed by transactivism, and in which the vast majority of women in the world, athletes and non-athletes alike, [...].
Read now
20 June 2022
But women still exist
We don't like the title too much, especially that laconic 'again', but thanks to La Repubblica for hosting our intervention in the debate that started with Michela Marzano's text entitled 'Se non è il sesso a fare la donna'. We republish it here because you cannot find it on'online
Published in La Repubblica our text in the debate opened by Michela Marzano with her intervention on 'women with penises' and other wonders. We are keeping the original title that was given to our intervention so as not to cause confusion, even if we do not like it much. Here is the full text to follow. What is a woman? She is the one who brought us into the world, each and every one of us. Of this there can be no doubt. Which in no way means that [...]
Read now
1 2 3 ... 38