I think the way someone might answer this question depends greatly on what precise part of the policy they get to control.
If you live in a country where the schools tell kids they might be born in the wrong body - and gender clinics provide procedures with little accountability. As a policy maker if you have no control over the schools o…
I think the way someone might answer this question depends greatly on what precise part of the policy they get to control.
If you live in a country where the schools tell kids they might be born in the wrong body - and gender clinics provide procedures with little accountability. As a policy maker if you have no control over the schools or medical practice but you have the ability to ban these interventions - then that might be a very tempting path.
If alternatively you live in a country where schools do not indulge in these practices and the health system is well funded and takes an evidence based approach which strongly leans toward "first do no harm" - then you might view a change in medical practice as a preferable path to ending pediatric transition.
I understand where you are coming from, David, but I disagree based on the evidence we have now. Medical and surgical procedures for the mental illnesses covered by the term "gender dysphoria" have been going on in even the most evidence-based countries, despite there being absolutely no good quality evidence for treating them any differently than other dysphorias. The medical profession has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, and so needs the heavy hand of legislation to state clearly that these procedures are (at least) exceptional and need oversight from other professions. It isn't commonly known that lobotomies aren't actually illegal in England and Wales, for example - they just need the consent of the patient, opinions of independent psychiatrists and social workers, and finally permission from a judge. I'd be reasonably happy with that solution for trans if we can't get an outright ban (though that's what I'd like to see, especially for children and young people).
Thanks for the reply. I actually don't have a strong view.
I understand the desire to prohibit these interventions, but it is a desperate measure that only makes sense if medical practice has run off the rails. Which it has.
Absolutely. It's not something I would ordinarily support, but every now and again medical practitioners need to be reminded that they are not above the law.
I think the way someone might answer this question depends greatly on what precise part of the policy they get to control.
If you live in a country where the schools tell kids they might be born in the wrong body - and gender clinics provide procedures with little accountability. As a policy maker if you have no control over the schools or medical practice but you have the ability to ban these interventions - then that might be a very tempting path.
If alternatively you live in a country where schools do not indulge in these practices and the health system is well funded and takes an evidence based approach which strongly leans toward "first do no harm" - then you might view a change in medical practice as a preferable path to ending pediatric transition.
I understand where you are coming from, David, but I disagree based on the evidence we have now. Medical and surgical procedures for the mental illnesses covered by the term "gender dysphoria" have been going on in even the most evidence-based countries, despite there being absolutely no good quality evidence for treating them any differently than other dysphorias. The medical profession has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, and so needs the heavy hand of legislation to state clearly that these procedures are (at least) exceptional and need oversight from other professions. It isn't commonly known that lobotomies aren't actually illegal in England and Wales, for example - they just need the consent of the patient, opinions of independent psychiatrists and social workers, and finally permission from a judge. I'd be reasonably happy with that solution for trans if we can't get an outright ban (though that's what I'd like to see, especially for children and young people).
Thanks for the reply. I actually don't have a strong view.
I understand the desire to prohibit these interventions, but it is a desperate measure that only makes sense if medical practice has run off the rails. Which it has.
Absolutely. It's not something I would ordinarily support, but every now and again medical practitioners need to be reminded that they are not above the law.