Kraken Black Spiced Rum, 1L
£25.49The UK’s Court of Appeal has granted the mother of a teenager who wishes to undergo cross-sex hormone treatment a victory in her quest to keep the courts involved in the case. Although the 16-year-old is legally permitted to make their own medical decisions under UK law, the court stated that the case would be monitored in light of significant change in gender services and regulation. Cross-sex hormone treatment is often utilised by those transitioning from one gender to another, allowing them to develop masculine or feminine physical traits. The individual at the centre of the case was declared competent and capable of consenting to hormone treatment, but the court acknowledged that it may have to intervene to ensure the decision is made in the individual’s best interests.
The ruling was welcomed by the teenager’s mother and her legal representation, with Paul Conrathe stating that it marked an end to the assumption that simply being 16 years old, intelligent, and in good health meant that cross-sex hormone treatment was the appropriate course of action. The case has dragged on for two years, with the mother using crowdfunding to finance legal charges as she fought against her child’s treatment. Meanwhile, the teenager’s father has supported the young person’s right to receive hormone therapy.
The case highlights the increasing challenges posed by how best to regulate gender care treatment in cases involving minors. The recent Cass Review issued a warning over weak evidence and a lack of research into such treatments, which led to NHS England recommending that significant caution be exercised when considering cross-sex hormones. Multi-disciplinary clinics are to be established under new guidelines. One privately-run gender hormone clinic, Gender Plus, exists in the UK; it was rated “outstanding” by the regulator, the Care Quality Commission.
The Court of Appeal noted that consensus between the two parents was unlikely, hence the case should continue, given sufficient doubt over what constitutes appropriate treatment for the teen under rapidly changing regulation. The court adjourned Q’s case to allow future involvement if required
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
