A father has launched a High Court challenge against GP partnership WellBN after his transgender child was prescribed cross sex hormones through the NHS.
The father, known only as ATN, is seeking to continue legal action against the Sussex based partnership over what his lawyers described as an “unlawful” prescribing policy for under 18s.
Strict reporting restrictions mean neither the teenager nor family can be identified.
The case was heard before Mr Justice MacDonald at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Lawyers for ATN told the court his child, known only as ATT, was prescribed hormone replacement therapy “without his parents’ consent and in a manner wholly inconsistent with current NHS guidelines”.
The court heard ATT was prescribed oestrogen and spironolactone through what was described as an “informed consent” model, where patients discuss risks and agree to treatment without first going through a full specialist NHS gender clinic assessment.
The challenge centres on whether GPs should be prescribing gender affirming hormones to children outside specialist NHS gender services following the Cass Review.
Appearing for the father, Vikram Sachdeva KC said the WellBN policy was contrary to NHS guidance issued after the Cass Review.
The father launched a High Court challenge against GP partnership WellBN after his transgender child was prescribed cross sex hormones through the NHS
|GETTY
The court heard Baroness Cass recommended “extreme caution” when prescribing masculinising and feminising hormones to children and young people.
Mr Sachdeva told the court the GP practice’s approach was “inconsistent with the approach of joint decision making”.
He argued children’s gender treatment is commissioned as a specialist NHS service rather than ordinary GP care.
The court heard the Royal College of GPs issued guidance earlier this year stating prescribing gender affirming hormones to under 18s “was not part of the GP role”.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
The father’s legal team also argued GMC guidance only allows “bridging prescriptions” for adults.
According to written submissions, WellBN offered NHS funded hormone treatment to under 17s in East and West Suffolk after blood tests, a single 40-minute appointment and the signing of a consent form.
The court heard around 70 young patients may have received similar treatment.
Mr Sachdeva told the court NHS England had informed the partnership it had “no lawful basis for providing NHS funded treatment of this kind”.
The barrister argued the prescribing model “results in inevitably negligent and unlawful practice”.
WellBN clinic in Brighton | GOOGLE MAPSThe hearing was told the partnership stopped prescribing hormones to under 18s in April last year after intervention from NHS bodies.
But the father’s lawyers argued the case should still proceed because WellBN had not accepted its previous prescribing policy was unlawful.
The court heard that after restrictions on puberty blockers were announced, the practice publicly stated: “As providers of these drugs we believe this is targeted discrimination towards transgender youth.”
Mr Sachdeva also told the court NHS England had launched an independent safety investigation into the practice and was concerned it had been “mimicking a specialist gender service”.
He argued the case raised wider public interest issues about whether GP practices should prescribe hormones to children at all.
Mr Sachdeva said his client brought the case because “he doesn’t want other families to go through what he has been through”.
Appearing for WellBN, Nicola Newbegin KC argued the case should be dismissed because the prescribing policy was no longer operating.
She told the court there was “no public interest in the claim proceeding”.
The barrister said the partnership had already stopped providing the treatment complained of and had “no intention” of failing to comply with NHS England instructions.
Ms Newbegin said the challenge was “unsustainable” and had a “total lack of merit”.
She also told the court the debate over whether under 18s should receive gender affirming hormones was “not something the court can, let alone should, seek to resolve”.
The court heard the partnership argued ATT themselves were “noticeably not bringing this claim”.
Ms Newbegin also said some material relied upon by the father reflected “historic positions” previously published on the practice’s website.
At one stage, Mr Justice MacDonald questioned whether complaints about GP conduct should instead be dealt with by medical regulators.
The judge reserved judgment at the end of the hearing and will deliver his ruling in writing at a later date.