July 13th 2024.
On April 20, a group of activists advocating for transgender rights gathered to protest against a ban on hormone blockers. This ban, which prevents young people from accessing medication that delays the onset of puberty, was put in place by the former health secretary based on their personal beliefs and without consulting any medical experts.
The ban, known as the 'banning order', was challenged in court by the campaign group TransActual and a young person who remains anonymous. They argued that the legislation, which prohibits the prescription of puberty blockers from non-NHS sources and restricts access within clinical trials, was unlawful.
However, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland defended the ban, stating that the case should be dismissed. This ban was implemented following the release of the Cass Review, which found a lack of research and evidence on the use of puberty blockers and hormones in children's gender services within the NHS.
Although the ban was put in place by the previous Conservative government, the court heard that it may be made permanent by the current Labour ministers. In an email from the Government Legal Department, it was stated that the government supports the implementation of the Cass Review and is considering making the ban permanent after appropriate consultation.
The campaigners and the anonymous young person are challenging the decision of now-shadow health secretary Victoria Atkins to impose the 'banning order'. In a statement after the hearing, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, emphasized the government's commitment to putting the safety of children first and providing evidence-led care.
During the hearing, Judge Mrs Justice Lang was informed that the emergency order, described as a 'criminal prohibition introduced with a few days' notice', could have a severe impact on more than 1,000 children and their families. The group and the young person's lawyer, Jason Coppel KC, argued that the order was made without proper consultation and solely based on the former health secretary's personal views.
In written submissions, Coppel stated that the former minister overruled officials who had warned her about the serious consequences of the ban, including self-harm and suicide, on vulnerable children and young people who had already started treatment. He also mentioned that there was no clear reasoning from the minister on why puberty blockers were considered a 'serious danger to health'.
On the other hand, Julian Milford KC, representing the two government bodies, argued that the minister was justified in taking a precautionary approach to protect vulnerable children. He also stated that the ban does not prevent access to other forms of gender healthcare and that consulting on the decision would have undermined the order itself.
The hearing before Mrs Justice Lang is expected to conclude on Friday, with a written decision to be released at a later date.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
