The Court of Appeal said that "it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence" to consent to receive puberty blockers. In September 2021, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgment, and ruled that the High Court should not have issued guidance on the Gillick test and puberty blockers, because that court should have dismissed the case when it ruled that the Tavistock guidance was lawful. we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment". The court also said that " respect of young persons aged 16 and over. The High Court ruling, which was overturned on appeal, said that it was unlikely that a child under the age of 16 could be Gillick competent to consent to puberty blocking treatment. By contrast, people aged 16 or older are presumed to have the ability to consent to medical treatment ( Gillick does not apply). It is related to Gillick competence, the legal principle governing under what circumstances under-16s can consent to medical treatment in their own right.
R (on the application of Quincy Bell and A) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others, more often called simply Bell v Tavistock, is a decision of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, on the question of whether puberty blockers could be prescribed to under-18s with gender dysphoria. Dame Eleanor King (Lady Justice of Appeal).Sir Geoffrey Vos ( Master of the Rolls).The Lord Burnett of Maldon ( Lord Chief Justice).Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the Queen's Bench Division).R (on the application of Quincy Bell and A) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and othersĪppeal decision published 17 September 2021 Decision of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales Bell v.
0 kommentar(er)
