THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRANS AND GENDER DIVERSE YOUTH TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF HORMONE TREATMENT: A COMPARISON OF AUSTRALIAN JURISPRUDENCE WITH THE ENGLISH DECISION IN BELL.
{"title":"THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRANS AND GENDER DIVERSE YOUTH TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF HORMONE TREATMENT: A COMPARISON OF AUSTRALIAN JURISPRUDENCE WITH THE ENGLISH DECISION IN BELL.","authors":"Malcolm K Smith","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwac026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court's reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court's reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"47-82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9969405/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court's reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court's reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.
本文概述了澳大利亚与未成年人有关的法律立场和性别焦虑症(GD)激素治疗的开始。它追溯了澳大利亚在这一领域的重大法律发展,并将澳大利亚的法理学与最近的英国判例法进行了比较。在Quincy Bell和Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors一案中,英国高等法院认为16岁以下的未成年人不太可能具备合法同意开始服用青春期抑制药物的必要能力。上诉法院随后推翻了这一决定,但高等法院的推理中有一些重要方面值得进一步分析,特别是关于GD作为一种疾病的性质及其治疗的一些基本推理。本文在比较高等法院在贝尔案中的推理与澳大利亚法理学时,强调了几个共同的主题,并强调了自澳大利亚在这一领域的第一批案件被判决以来,澳大利亚的立场是如何取得重大进展的。这一比较表明,澳大利亚的观点在展示司法观点如何随着时间的推移而发展是很重要的,同时对GD、GD的待遇以及要求法院参与此类案件的更广泛影响有了更深入的理解。结论是,在未来的英语案例中应考虑澳大利亚的视角。
期刊介绍:
The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law.
The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.