Evan Urquhart

Gillick is for when there is a clear treatment pathway that has well-understood benefits and potential downsides. Children were being given treatment when it wasn't understood what the effects were, which impacts whether informed consent can be given.

But, that doesn't describe PBs, which have been prescribed for decades and are well understood?

Do children need to demonstrate Gillick competence to be treated with the same drugs at the same ages for early onset of puberty?

Your last two tweets demonstrate that you haven't read the judgment.

Here's a link. https://twitter.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1333732359804489729?s=19 … Do have a read, it answers all your questions and it lays it out very clearly.

Read it last night, but I'm still confused why trans medical care is treated differently than other treatments, even treatment with the exact same drug in the exact same age children?

It seems to me, from reading the judgment, that the judges were persuaded that PBs lead to transition. But since they dont when used in cis children it must not be the drugs themselves that cause this outcome. In which case there must be another, non-medical aspect...

...of the treatment that is the source of the objection. But the judgment didn't answer my questions about whether other non-medical treatments such as talk therapy require extensive research and Gillick hearings?