Monday, May 23, 2022
HomeCulture WarsJudges deal another body blow to protective parents

Judges deal another body blow to protective parents

-

THREE Supreme Court Justices have ended Keira Bell’s legal fight against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s practice of allowing children diagnosed with gender dysphoria to take puberty blockers without parental consent, providing their doctors ‘agree’.

In a decision published last week, Lord Reed, Lord Sales and Lord Stephens denied Ms Bell permission to bring her case to the court as it did not ‘raise an arguable point of law’. 

Keira Bell, now 23, was given puberty blockers to ‘transition to male’ after three hours of consultation when she was 16. She was referred on to ‘cross-hormone therapy and then sex transition’.

She sought a declaration that prescribing puberty blockers to children without a court declaration was unlawful. In 2020 she told the High Court: ‘I made a brash decision as a teenager, as a lot of teenagers do, trying to find confidence and happiness, except now the rest of my life will be negatively affected.’

In the original case the High Court ruled that children under the age of 16 lacked the capacity to give informed consent to medical treatment which delays the onset of puberty, limiting their use.

The NHS Trust challenged the decision and the Court of Appeal reversed the ruling on the grounds that the court was ‘not in a position to generalise about the capability of persons of different ages to understand what is necessary for them to be competent to consent to the administration of puberty blockers’.

The Appeal Court judges said it was up to doctors to ‘exercise their judgment’ about whether their patients could properly consent, adding that the original decision ‘placed patients, parents, and clinicians in a very difficult position’. One must ask whether decisions about altering the sex of a child should ever be anything other than ‘very difficult’ and how any medical professional could know a child better than their parents.

Ms Bell expressed disappointment in the decision but said she was ‘delighted at what has been achieved as a result of this case. We have shone a light on the murky practices of one of the greatest medical scandals of the modern era’.

What’s plain is that both the legal and the medical profession are putting themselves at odds with large numbers of parents looking to protect their vulnerable children. This is yet another rotten plank in the globalist Marxist agenda to destroy our society by weakening parental rights and obligations in respect of children and by intervening in family matters in ways that cannot help but cause strife and anxiety. Parental rights are being persistently eroded by the MSM, the dark corners of social media, and the introduction of CRT, BLM, Wokeism, and the LGBTQI+ ethos in education from nursery to university and by state overreach in health evidenced throughout the Covid ‘pandemic’ and by governments adopting medico-pharmacological authoritarianism.

Some argue that this legal outcome was entirely predictable and that the decision to give doctors essentially carte blanche to prescribe puberty blockers to children under 16 without parental consent is not such a big step given state overreach in almost every other area of our lives.

This rule is already apparent in the prescribing of contraceptives to under-age children, the treatment of venereal disease, and abortion. Child protection advocates consider that it is another step on the road to paedophiles successfully arguing for societal ‘acknowledgement of the sexual agency’ of children under 16 and the formal ending of the present age of consent.

Trans activists consider it a great victory and one suspects so might Big Pharma, hormone consultants, psychosexual therapists, ‘specialist trans’ surgeons, and clinical negligence lawyers who will all benefit from the fruits of this evil enterprise. The NHS, allegedly short of funds, will doubtless curtail less innovative treatments to support the latest woke cause.

To my mind, however, it is a dismal decision on many fronts. Firstly, history tells us that the state makes an extremely poor parent and that state agents interfering in families rarely improve circumstances. Secondly, pushing the decision on to doctors is wrong. They have shown themselves to be easily influenced by groupthink and are sometimes enraptured by their own omnipotence; neither are they immune to financial and status considerations.

Thirdly, there is something going terribly wrong in how we are bringing up children, especially girls, who are increasingly looking to avoid womanhood: this should be discussed and resolved before hormones and scalpels are deployed. Lastly, and most importantly, there are no long-term studies that prove the benefits of these ‘treatments’, but there is growing evidence of harm. This is another mass experiment on innocent victims.

In the future, what parent will risk taking their child near a medic, for fear of being caught up in this mass delusion? Who will assume the responsibility for protecting dissident parents, when the courts so easily dismiss their rights, and who will care for their mutilated children in adulthood? You can be assured that the state and its agents will be absent.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Kate Dunlop
Kate Dunlop
Kate Dunlop is a mediator.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.