Mermaids - helping children & teenagers to deceive their parents

Glorianny

Rosie51

Sending out breast binders secretly, on request, has nothing to do with Gillick competence.

I find it very disturbing that you should seek to confuse the issue by bringing in this judgement to justify harmful action, in direct contradiction to its intended aims.

Exactly. Contraception would not be provided over the internet never having met or examined the patient. Some people claim breast binders 'used properly' do not harm. Many medical people disagree, but what is certain is that a breast binder sent out by Mermaids has not been checked for fit on the girl, and she has not been assessed for her competency in following the instructions for its use. Telling her on a leaflet to restrict its use without graphically outlining the permanent bodily damage that can be caused is just dereliction of the duty of care.

The article says quite clearly that the dangers were described and that the person being supplied had to agree to the guidelines Mermaid advocated for using the binder. So actually they were not provided without any information. Of course someone could till misuse the item, but that could happen regardless of where the binder came from. And some of the methods used by children who don't have access to binders are far more harmful.

Dear Lord.

So they don’t care if young girls harm themselves permanently as long as they have taken steps to cover themselves against any future responsibility.

No assessment, no follow up. No care.

Just a determination to push a political agenda through no matter the cost.

Reading this list of ducking and diving convinces me that the good of children is the very last thing on this twisted agenda,

Doodledog

Also, girls taking the pill have regular checks by a doctor or family planning nurse. Random people on the internet are not given any such aftercare or support.

Because girls who want to go on the pill have instant (well fairly instant) access to a GP who will prescribe for them. The child questioning gender faces at least a 4 year wait for help. Imagine how many more babies or abortions would happen if girls had to wait that long.
As I said provide proper gender clinics and advice to children and the need for Mermaids will vanish.

Keira Bell
For those who defend this abhorrence.

www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

Also, girls taking the pill have regular checks by a doctor or family planning nurse. Random people on the internet are not given any such aftercare or support.

Lathyrus

Health care professionals who have had contact with the child, carried out medical assessments and have had in-depth discussions with the child in order to feel confident that the child fully understands all the implications, short term and long term, of the medical treatment they are seeking.

Sending out breast binders secretly, on request, has nothing to do with Gillick competence.

I find it very disturbing that you should seek to confuse the issue by bringing in this judgement to justify harmful action, in direct contradiction to its intended aims.

100% this.

It is clutching at straws to link sending out binders to children who have not been seen by a professional of any description to doctors prescribing contraceptive pills to sexually active 15 year olds who have been advised of the risks and alternative options. They are very clearly two different things.

It smacks of being determined to make Mermaids right at all costs - just because they are encouraging children to transition.

Rosie51

^Sending out breast binders secretly, on request, has nothing to do with Gillick competence.^

I find it very disturbing that you should seek to confuse the issue by bringing in this judgement to justify harmful action, in direct contradiction to its intended aims.

Exactly. Contraception would not be provided over the internet never having met or examined the patient. Some people claim breast binders 'used properly' do not harm. Many medical people disagree, but what is certain is that a breast binder sent out by Mermaids has not been checked for fit on the girl, and she has not been assessed for her competency in following the instructions for its use. Telling her on a leaflet to restrict its use without graphically outlining the permanent bodily damage that can be caused is just dereliction of the duty of care.

The article says quite clearly that the dangers were described and that the person being supplied had to agree to the guidelines Mermaid advocated for using the binder. So actually they were not provided without any information. Of course someone could till misuse the item, but that could happen regardless of where the binder came from. And some of the methods used by children who don't have access to binders are far more harmful.

Sending out breast binders secretly, on request, has nothing to do with Gillick competence.

I find it very disturbing that you should seek to confuse the issue by bringing in this judgement to justify harmful action, in direct contradiction to its intended aims.

Exactly. Contraception would not be provided over the internet never having met or examined the patient. Some people claim breast binders 'used properly' do not harm. Many medical people disagree, but what is certain is that a breast binder sent out by Mermaids has not been checked for fit on the girl, and she has not been assessed for her competency in following the instructions for its use. Telling her on a leaflet to restrict its use without graphically outlining the permanent bodily damage that can be caused is just dereliction of the duty of care.

14 year olds are children. I have a 15yo living with me at the moment, he's definitely a child and he needs to be given time to grow and he needs to be nurtured. He is a child.

I'm sure if I decided to take a month in Sri Lanka to find myself, social services and authorities might have something to say about me leaving him on his own so likewise I would expect to be included in his healthcare decisions especially of he wanted to take life long body altering drugs or treatments

None of this is transphobic or narrow minded

Glorianny

Gillick competence uses the term health care professionals. As no one on GN knows how Mermaids decides or who is involved in the decision it may still count. It no longer refers purely to contraceptive advice but is recognised as the standard for other treatment or advice.

Mermaid's representative swore on oath recently that they are not medical professionals, there was no claim to be any sort of health care professionals, indeed they distanced themselves from any responsibility in that area.
I think we all know that when you stop using contraception then the contraceptive effect ceases? There has been no permanent impact on conception ability. Children placed on puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones do suffer permanent effects.

Health care professionals who have had contact with the child, carried out medical assessments and have had in-depth discussions with the child in order to feel confident that the child fully understands all the implications, short term and long term, of the medical treatment they are seeking.

Sending out breast binders secretly, on request, has nothing to do with Gillick competence.

I find it very disturbing that you should seek to confuse the issue by bringing in this judgement to justify harmful action, in direct contradiction to its intended aims.

I may be wrong but I see a difference between deciding a 14 year old can be prescribed contraceptives and having potentially life changing drugs

Gillick competence uses the term health care professionals. As no one on GN knows how Mermaids decides or who is involved in the decision it may still count. It no longer refers purely to contraceptive advice but is recognised as the standard for other treatment or advice.

Gillick competence refers to decisions that doctors and other qualified medical staff are empowered to make in the best interests of a child, after medical assessments.

In no way, shape or form does it give organisations like Mermaids the right to make those decisions.

In the case bringing in Gillick competence is totally irrelevant.

Iam64

Glorianny- the point the trans issues shouldn’t be separated from all medical (and psychological) care is one stressed in the Cass report. It was also a recurring theme from the so called gender critical on here

But they continue to insist that 14year olds are not competent to decide for themselves. It's the same argument presented about the contraceptive pill being prescribed without a parent's knowledge to under 16s, except I suspect many found that acceptable who now question provision for under 16 transchildren. That's why Gillick competence exists. Parents do not have an automatic right to block their child from being treated.

Glorianny- the point the trans issues shouldn’t be separated from all medical (and psychological) care is one stressed in the Cass report. It was also a recurring theme from the so called gender critical on here

As far as assessing any issues about transgender problems and children using on-line facilities to obtain the help they need this could be stopped tomorrow if there was sufficient provision of face to face gender counselling for children.
And the same regulations should apply as with any other medical provision. That is, is the child Gillick competent? The trans issue isn't something separate from all other medical care.

I recall a video of a few years ago by The Idge of Reason.
She said that on the first day of social work training, her group of around 60 people were told that stats showed probably 1 or 2 of them were there specifically because of the potential to be abusive in that career.
And now we have random adults getting similar opportunities because 'Be Kind'.

I think that some do, yes. Being seen to be 'kind' or, as you say, 'in touch' is a driver for them, and particularly when they are not directly involved, but on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, the parents, and most importantly the children get caught up in it all.

Lathyrus is absolutely right. In any other situation, an adult keeping secrets with a child, and encouraging children to keep things from their parents, would be a cause for alarm. I wonder how many prosecutions there will be when this all blows up in the faces of organisations like Mermaids and becomes the next big scandal.

Shelflife says ‘trans children are here and always have been’.
I have worked with children almost all my working life, and can honestly say I had never come across one until recently. I have four older grandchildren, all of whom have told me of at least one trans person in their peer group.
Am I the only one who feels sometimes adults, for whatever reason, are encouraging some children in a ‘trans’ journey, when perhaps gender is not the issue? I am not saying by any means that it should be dismissed as ‘just a phase’, but I do wonder if adults want to be seen as in touch with young people.

Absolutely Lathyrus
Any adult who wants 'secrets' with a child should be setting off klaxons, bells and flashing lights!
Disclaimer, keeping mummy's birthday gift a secret until the day doesn't count!

I worry the motivation of any adult that says “I’ve got something for you - *but don’t tell your parents*”

FarNorth

Doodledog

I think that Mermaids, like Stonewall, started out as a good thing, but as time went on they have become radicalised and are now a danger to the children they claim to want to help.

Perhaps the shift of viewpoint started when Susie Green got involved with Mermaids .

It's clear from her own account, posted earlier in this thread, that she and her husband couldn't cope with having a boy child who didn't fit male stereotypes.

"Get the child sorted to suit us" seemed to be her attitude.

I did wonder when I posted the link if the shift started once she got involved. Some people do give the impression that they welcome the increase in numbers of transitioning children, it's another way of validating their own decisions.
I worry about any adults who encourage transition, binders, medication without first using explorative therapy and talking.

Likewise 'Butterfly', the TV drama hailed as groundbreaking for 'trans kids'.
Yet its storyline clearly shows a child, Max, surrounded by people who couldn't cope with him not being a stereotypical male.

Doodledog

I think that Mermaids, like Stonewall, started out as a good thing, but as time went on they have become radicalised and are now a danger to the children they claim to want to help.

Perhaps the shift of viewpoint started when Susie Green got involved with Mermaids .

It's clear from her own account, posted earlier in this thread, that she and her husband couldn't cope with having a boy child who didn't fit male stereotypes.

"Get the child sorted to suit us" seemed to be her attitude.

Farnorth said Obviously I wouldn't simply contradict my GC, if they were in this situation. I'd accept however they wanted to present themselves. The one fact is that no-one can change sex.

Exactly. A friend with a trans-daughter loves her as much as she did when she was her (my friend’s) son. She has helped her trans-dd explore the options over three or four years. The dd is now adult and can make her own decisions as to medical care. Friend uses female pronouns - the name was already one used for both boys and girls and wasn’t changed.

However, my friend knows that her daughter will always have XY chromosomes.