Bell v Tavistock was whether a child or young person under the age of 16 could achieve Gillick competence in respect of the decision to take puberty blockers [133]. The court specifically declined to address whether parents could consent to the use of puberty blockers on their child s behalf, as this was not the Gender Identity Development Service s ( GIDS ) policy; GIDS relied on consent of the child or young adult being treated [47]
1.
Bell v Tavistock for the court to limit its inquiry to
Gillick competence, it undoubtedly left a lacuna as to whether the administration of puberty blockers to children under 16 based on parental (together with clinical) consent required court oversight. This has led to a number of difficulties for transitioning children and their families, from the inability of trans children to access puberty blockers to referrals to social services.
Bell v Tavistock ) has caused a great deal of concern amongst the parents of children with gender dysphoria and trans children themselves. A link to the proceedings can be found
here, but in short, the claimants, Ms Bell and Mrs A, brought a claim for judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust through its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS); University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Ms Bell had transitioned whilst she was a patient of GIDS and subsequently de-transitioned as an adult; Mrs A was the mother of an autistic child with gender dysphoria who was concerned about her child being referred to GIDS and prescribed puberty blockers (notwithstanding that the child would not meet GIDS criteria and therefore this was a theoretical concern).
The experimental nature and potential lifelong consequences of puberty blockers led judges to conclude that the courts must sanction its use for children suffering gender dysphoria, says Michelle Janas