During law school, one of the main tenets of education was that it was always important to fully understand all sides to any given legal situation in order to fully represent your side. There are always at least two sides, and each side usually has some strengths and some weaknesses. If not, then there is usually a situation in which one truly unreasonable person is involved. I say this as a preface to introducing you to this story:
[A]n Australian child has been given legal approval to begin hormone treatment based solely on a psychiatric assessment.One one hand, it seems totally bizarre that a court would go so against natural convention but on the other hand, is allowing such to occur better than allowing a young child to kill or serious mutilate itself? Regrettably, these news stories seldom provide the depth of information necessary to get a full picture of a situation of this magnitude. I am surely hopeful that it is not a situation, as suggested by Sassy, "that Australia's Family Court rushed into the decision to be the first in a social, political and legal statement of liberalism." Posted by notGeorge at April 15, 2004 09:35 PM | TrackBack
He was assessed by a psychiatrist, who concluded he was a "bright, engaging, biologically normal 12-year-old girl who has a strong, persistent, longstanding belief and desire to live life as a male", reported the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper.The psychiatrist reported that Alex "feels trapped in his body" and experiences depression and suicidal thoughts.
In approving the application, the court stipulated that Alex's treatment be phased so that it does not become irreversible until he reaches 16.
Hmmm. I can do some digging but Sassy's comment would not surprise me. We have had some particularly silly decisions lately as a result of courts here trying to expand their ability to make (as opposed to interpret) law.
Posted by: Ozguru at April 16, 2004 08:50 AM