Puberty Blockers Trial: Consent

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask His Majesty’s Government at what age they consider it appropriate for an individual to be able to consent to the administration of puberty blockers on a trial basis.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as former chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the PATHWAYS trial entry age was recently reviewed by the MHRA and the sponsor, resulting in a minimum age of 11 for females and 12 for males. It aims to study treatment when it is most clinically relevant while safeguarding participants. Eligibility is tightly controlled; it requires parental consent, a minimum two-year gender incongruence diagnosis, psychosocial support, and NHS and multidisciplinary team approval, as well as participant understanding of the risks and benefits, physical and mental stability, and compliance with safeguarding requirements.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, how can the Minister justify the age of 11 for a puberty blocker trial? A child under 16 cannot consent to sex or to medical treatment if they are not Gillick competent. They cannot join the Army, smoke, take drugs or alcohol, or even watch social media soon. We condemn FGM, but here is something much more profound. I ask your Lordships to think back to when you were 11—did you understand what it meant to be a woman or a man? The children in this trial are utterly unable to give meaningful consent.

A trial of just two years will tell us nothing. We need retrospective evidence from those who have already taken these drugs. It is only when they reach middle age that those experimented-on children might reflect on whether it would have been better to have been fertile, to have had fulfilling, intimate relationships and to have been themselves. I predict litigation on the scale of infected blood. The first principle of medical ethics is, “Do no harm”. This trial cannot avoid doing harm. I think parents will join me in asking the Minister to stop it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate that the noble Baroness has strong views—so do a number of noble Lords, as we heard on the Statement that I presented and responded to yesterday. On consent, I remind noble Lords that this is a sensitive, emotive and difficult subject, but that is why we have to be driven, as the previous Government were, by clinical evidence and experts. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, who was rightly entrusted with an independent review, said:

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence”.


There are always choices. We could continue with uncertainty and risks to the safety of children and young people, which I think none of us wants, or undertake a scientifically guided trial for 233 children, with all the right safeguards that I have referred to, and protect children and young people.