UK Court’s Dangerous Reversal on Puberty Blockers for Minors
A recent United Kingdom Appeals Court decision to allow puberty blockers for children was “ill-considered and dangerous,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.
The court reversed a 2020 ruling that those under 16 lack the capacity to give informed consent to potentially life-changing drugs, which stop the onset of puberty.
While acknowledging “the difficulties and complexities” of the issue, the court nevertheless held that “it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent [from a minor] is properly obtained according to the individual circumstances.”
Morse called this absurd.
“You’re going to rely on a ‘gender-identity’ clinic, which makes money from dispensing these drugs, to assure that consent is properly obtained from a child?”
Morse noted that Keira Bell, the original plaintiff, was given hormone blockers at age 16 after just three one-hour sessions at the Tavistock clinic.
She was later prescribed testosterone and had a double mastectomy at 20. Now, at 23, she is in the process of de-transitioning.
Irreparable Damage
Bell said that when she began trying to reverse the process, “it was heartbreaking to realize I’d gone down the wrong path.”
The drugs she started taking at sixteen had “irreparably damaged” her body and likely left her sterile.
“This ruling doesn’t address the fact that the previous court described these so-called gender affirmation treatments as ‘experimental,’” Morse noted.
“This court ignored the seriously under-studied, long-term consequences of puberty blockers.
If adults don’t fully know what these powerful hormonal interventions do to a young person’s body, how do we expect someone under age 16 to know?
“You can’t drive, vote, or enlist in the military in the United Kingdom when you’re under 16.
But, according to ‘trans’ activists, minors have the maturity and discernment to take drugs that could radically alter their body chemistry in preparation for chemical castration and surgical alteration in the future.
Something is clearly wrong here.”
___
Originally published on the Ruth Institute. Image by M. on Unsplash.
Recent Articles:
16 September 2026
4.7 MINS
Sall Grover is leaving Australia, but not the fight. Following the High Court's refusal to hear her appeal in Giggle v. Tickle, Grover declared she will not call a man a woman — whatever the law says. She won't stop fighting until the law changes.
16 September 2026
6.7 MINS
When Dr Paul Tyson hand-delivered a letter opposing the Digital Duty of Care bill to his local MP's office, he expected a brief exchange. Instead, he left feeling patronised, unheard, and more alarmed than ever.
16 September 2026
3.2 MINS
Before it was ‘Dignity in Dying’, the euthanasia lobby was founded by a medical eugenicist who called the sick a “useless burden”. That dark history didn't disappear — it was just rebranded.
16 September 2026
2.2 MINS
Thirty-seven years after the Berlin Wall fell, socialism is gaining popularity among Americans with no memory of life behind the Iron Curtain. History, however, tells a very different story.
15 September 2026
5.1 MINS
Joshua Broome was a porn star with fame, money, and a drug overdose planned. Trapped in deep shame and guilt, he found forgiveness and his true identity in Jesus Christ, and is now a husband, father, author and pastor.
15 September 2026
1.7 MINS
The temptation to believe we have special knowledge others don’t is as old as Eden. But Christians must pursue what's true, and stop mistaking suspicion for wisdom and conspiracy for courage.
15 September 2026
13.4 MINS
Nation First analyses how Albanese’s Digital Duty of Care could expand the definition of online harm, pressure Big Tech to censor lawful speech and supercharge the powers of eSafety.
