Events, my dear, rather delayed me finishing my luke warn take into a cold one. Sorry.
When it comes to trans care there is heavy infantalising attitude abundant. Where in a normal healthcare situation you are mainly considered to be able to give informed consent and that's true of under 16s who are deemed able, or "Gillick competent" after the case that established the legal principle. But when it comes to trans assistance whether you're 8 or 80 there's an attitude of you can't possibly know what's best for you or you're just following the latest playground trends or those "cheerleaders" are leading you astray because [insert latest crazy conspiracy theory].
Last year Bell v Tavistock went against the decades old Gillick rule effectively shutting down treatment for transgender teens even with parental consent and the rigourous assessments of those at the Tavistock. Requiring court approval for every prescription of puberty blockers because they can't possibly contemplate what that would mean for them when they become old enough to start hormones and begin surgical interventions.
While I agree with the court that further research is needed, it's not like puberty blockers are brand new. The earliest recipients are well into adulthood and there have been numerous follow up studies and if there was even the slightest issue T********** Tr*** and their media friends would be mentioning it every second.
One hopes prescriptions can resume and the shocking two year waiting list can be cut.