Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the treatment of gender dysphoria described in Bell v Tavistock (UK 2020). Bell documents the treatment and sequelae of a 16-year-old adolescent referred to the Tavistock with gender dysphoria. Her case highlights contrasts between gender affirming care and comprehensive care. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other western centres, in the 2010s, the Tavistock began treating patients with gender dysphoria under the 'Dutch protocol' for gender affirming care. Bell reveals concerning lapses of clinical governance influenced by activists and linked to patient harm. The recent suspension of a senior child psychiatrist from an Australian public hospital service after questioning the evidence base and ethical foundation of gender affirming care underlines the need to resolve these uncertainties to address the crisis in the treatment of gender dysphoria.