To err is human – reflections on the Tavistock clinic cases

John Eekelaar Emeritus Fellow Pembroke College Oxford

In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust  and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 a former patient who had been treated with puberty blockers as a 16-year old progressed to cross-sex hormones and began surgical intervention to transition from female to male regretted the decision and terminated her treatment. In judicial review proceedings the Divisional Court [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin) [Div] made a declaration setting out the information it believed necessary to enable such a patient to give informed consent according to the Gillick criteria concluding that there was no ‘age appropriate way’ to provide it. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision holding that the declaration treated statements of fact as if they were statements of law. Instead the clinic needed to evaluate each patient’s competence individually. However the mistake the patient made here did not concern the nature and effectiveness of the procedure. but the life she would lead in the long term which would only become evident later. Since parents often make decisions with long-term...

Read the full article here.