Also aren't doctors unwilling to let women in their 20's and 30's be sterilised if they don't have children and don't want children because they might change their mind in future?I think I explained this a while back so I apologise if I’n repeating myself but it also relates to the permanence of the decision. So in law child autonomy is viewed as being a spectrum that once you turn 18 you are considered fully autonomous (if mentally competent). This is why for example children can consent to say, antibiotics without their parents being involved but they cannot refuse a life-saving blood transfusion because it would result in permanent death. This is why I personally think puberty blockers are so different to normal treatment that it would justify a departure from the normal law, which is that a competent child can consent to a treatment offered by a medical professional. Despite this, children under 16 still need parental consent to take part in a clinical trial involving an investigational medicinal product (aka a new drug or one tested for a new purpose) and this seems the same to me - PBs are experimental and lacking the longitudinal data that would speak to how permanent or not the decision is, so how can children make that decision?
Don't see how puberty blockers, we don't know the long term effects of are any different?