MY thanks to Dr LR for pointing this one out to me!
The UK Government passed a Mental Capacity Act in 2005 to protect those considered not able to make their own decisions.
What they didn’t realise is that in so doing they have given transsexual people the right to legally challenge the National Health Service gender charlatans and their perverse procedures taken from The World Professional Association for Transgender Health supported by their friends at Press for Change.
The whole principle of gender psychiatry is that a transsexual person is incapable of making a rational decision. They might regret it!
Denying a transsexual person the right to decide on surgery and putting long arbitrary timescales in to reach a decision is clearly an illegal process.
The Mental Capacity Act LOL
The whole Act is underpinned by key principles the two most important for transsexual people being:
A presumption of capacity - every adult has the right to make his or her own decisions and must be assumed to have capacity to do so unless it is proved otherwise.
That individuals must retain the right to make what might be seen as eccentric or unwise decisions.
Now as I see it this Act makes it impossible to argue that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate should not receive funding for surgery!
The Gender Recognition certificate is currently issued on basis of proof of 2 years of living in gender role, a statutory declaration that this is a permanent change and a medical diagnosis of transsexualism.
I will hit my PCT with this once I get my certificate.
You can find the Act at
Here are some relevant abstracts to bash the National Health Service with…
Section 1: The principles
This sets out key principles applying to decisions and actions taken under the Act. The starting point is a presumption of capacity.
A person must be assumed to have capacity until it is proved otherwise.
A person must also be supported to make his own decision, as far it is practicable to do so.
The Act requires "all practicable steps" to be taken to help the person. This could include, for example, making sure that the person is in an environment in which he is comfortable or involving an expert in helping him express his views.
It is expressly provided that a person is not to be treated as lacking capacity to make a decision simply because he makes an unwise decision. This means that a person who has the necessary ability to make the decision has the right to make irrational or eccentric decisions that others may not judge to be in his best interests (see section 3).
Everything done, or decision made, under the Act for a person who lacks capacity must be done in that person's best interests. This principle is expanded upon in section 4. In addition, the "least restrictive option" principle must always be considered. The person making the decision or acting must think whether it is possible to decide or act in a way that would interfere less with the rights and freedom of action of the person who lacks capacity.
Section 3: Inability to make decisions
26. This sets out the test for assessing whether a person is unable to make a decision about a matter and therefore lacks capacity in relation to that matter. It is a "functional" test, looking at the decision-making process itself.
Four reasons are given why a person may be unable to make a decision. The first three (subsection (1)(a) to (c)) will cover the vast majority of cases. To make a decision, a person must first be able to comprehend the information relevant to the decision (further defined in subsection (4)). Subsection (2) makes clear that a determination of incapacity may not be reached without the relevant information having been presented to the person in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances. Secondly, the person must be able to retain this information (for long enough to make the decision, as explained in subsection (3)). And thirdly, he must be able to use and weigh it to arrive at a choice. If the person cannot undertake one of these three aspects of the decision-making process then he is unable to make the decision.
Section 4: Best interests
28. It is a key principle of the Act that all steps and decisions taken for someone who lacks capacity must be taken in the person's best interests. The best interests principle is an essential aspect of the Act and builds on the common law while offering further guidance. Given the wide range of acts, decisions and circumstances that the Act will cover, the notion of "best interests" is not defined in the Act. Rather, subsection (2) makes clear that determining what is in a person's best interests requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances (defined in subsection (11)). Subsection (1) makes clear that best interests determinations must not be based merely on a person's age, appearance, or unjustified assumptions about what might be in a person's best interests based on the person's condition or behaviour. Best interests determinations must not therefore be made on the basis of any unjustified and prejudicial assumptions. For example, in making a best interests determination for a person who has a physical disability it would not be acceptable to assume that, because of this disability, they will not have a good quality of life and should therefore not receive treatment. As with section 2(3) the references to "condition" and "appearance" capture a range of factors. The section goes on to list particular steps that must be taken. Best interests is not a test of "substituted judgement" (what the person would have wanted), but rather it requires a determination to be made by applying an objective test as to what would be in the person's best interests. All the relevant circumstances, including the factors mentioned in the section must be considered, but none carries any more weight or priority than another. They must all be balanced in order to determine what would be in the best interests of the person concerned. The factors in this section do not provide a definition of best interests and are not exhaustive.
Have fun LOL...