You can bet millions was spent on lawyers to provide risk assessments about this, all across the land, as clinic after clinic was established. You can imagine the number crunchers who said "It's fine...the trans Healthcare legislation is in place, keep using off-labe…
You can bet millions was spent on lawyers to provide risk assessments about this, all across the land, as clinic after clinic was established. You can imagine the number crunchers who said "It's fine...the trans Healthcare legislation is in place, keep using off-label drugs on minors and expand and promote your services to more and more people. Now that ANY other clinical response other than affirmation-only is essentially illegal, you're good to go."
"Onerous regulations.
Not terribly unique."
Parents are being forced in some cases to medicalize their children or lose them, while the poor, beleaguered health care system is working in concert with legislators who were likely bought off by big pharma.
Those harmed by this callous, irresponsible, unproven, profit-motivated treatment will be hot potatoes regardless of whether "gender medicine" clinics are held culpable or not. The sooner the providers are held accountable, the fewer youngsters will be harmed.
Do you have any idea how many off label prescriptions are written every day? Including for children, because treatments that are approved for adults are often used for children without approval. In the vast majority of cases, no one is aware they or their child is getting an off label treatment because they are so widely accepted.
Now, I have a couple questions and I'm pretty sure of the answers but I'm truly interested in learning if I'm wrong.
Can you tell me of any legislation that was passed MANDATING medical gender transition for children, before the bans started? (Of note, one frequent unintended consequence of extreme reactive crackdowns is that the other side cracks down equally extremely).
Also, can you point to any specific instances of a child actually being removed (or even a specific parent who was threatened with removal) for the sole reason of gender affirmation issues? The only one I have seen named is the case of Sage, and from what I've read there seems to have been a lot of other issues in that case. Due to privacy laws pertaining to family court cases, we generally only get the parents' side of the story, and even with that in mind I have seen multiple issues that would have complicated child protection proceedings. (Bear in mind, too, that in that case as well as the still-hypothetical cases that will be impacted by the "gender sanctuary" policies, one complication is that Sage ran away from home and sought gender transition. It is very possible she actually refused to return. In nearly all cases of teenage runaways who refuse to return home, there is an investigation and court proceedings as well as attempts to determine a compromise like kinship placement.)
Also, you are naive if you believe there are only lawyers on one side of this issue. The evangelical right, including their law firms, is cashing in big on this issue right now, and has been heavily involved in things like drafting legislation. Another good reason to try to avoid legislative action: issues that become political in this split country generally raise major dollars for both sides. And they tend to become performances by political interests with families and constituents used as window dressing. Ultimately, those interests care about themselves and often don't give a hoot about the actual issue other than "how can I raise money and elevate my profile with this?"
I'm curious how you think these laws will hold providers accountable? Those who are merely in it for the money will run away before they can get snared by the beefed-up laws. Those who are really, truly trying to help and care about their population will be the only ones who might be harmed. Regardless, the payouts almost never come from the pockets of the providers themselves. It's a bit like trying to hold drunk drivers accountable by charging their insurance companies for the property damage and medical expenses they cause. Might raise their premiums, will also raise everyone else's if there are enough such cases, and soon you see dominos falling in the whole healthcare system.
Blanket legislative action like this is neither wise nor targeted. And it WILL have unintended effects-whether it has any of the intended ones, or not.
Onerous regulations?
Are you for real?
Issues that aren't terribly unique?
You can bet millions was spent on lawyers to provide risk assessments about this, all across the land, as clinic after clinic was established. You can imagine the number crunchers who said "It's fine...the trans Healthcare legislation is in place, keep using off-label drugs on minors and expand and promote your services to more and more people. Now that ANY other clinical response other than affirmation-only is essentially illegal, you're good to go."
"Onerous regulations.
Not terribly unique."
Parents are being forced in some cases to medicalize their children or lose them, while the poor, beleaguered health care system is working in concert with legislators who were likely bought off by big pharma.
Those harmed by this callous, irresponsible, unproven, profit-motivated treatment will be hot potatoes regardless of whether "gender medicine" clinics are held culpable or not. The sooner the providers are held accountable, the fewer youngsters will be harmed.
Why yes, in fact, I am "for real."
Do you have any idea how many off label prescriptions are written every day? Including for children, because treatments that are approved for adults are often used for children without approval. In the vast majority of cases, no one is aware they or their child is getting an off label treatment because they are so widely accepted.
Now, I have a couple questions and I'm pretty sure of the answers but I'm truly interested in learning if I'm wrong.
Can you tell me of any legislation that was passed MANDATING medical gender transition for children, before the bans started? (Of note, one frequent unintended consequence of extreme reactive crackdowns is that the other side cracks down equally extremely).
Also, can you point to any specific instances of a child actually being removed (or even a specific parent who was threatened with removal) for the sole reason of gender affirmation issues? The only one I have seen named is the case of Sage, and from what I've read there seems to have been a lot of other issues in that case. Due to privacy laws pertaining to family court cases, we generally only get the parents' side of the story, and even with that in mind I have seen multiple issues that would have complicated child protection proceedings. (Bear in mind, too, that in that case as well as the still-hypothetical cases that will be impacted by the "gender sanctuary" policies, one complication is that Sage ran away from home and sought gender transition. It is very possible she actually refused to return. In nearly all cases of teenage runaways who refuse to return home, there is an investigation and court proceedings as well as attempts to determine a compromise like kinship placement.)
Also, you are naive if you believe there are only lawyers on one side of this issue. The evangelical right, including their law firms, is cashing in big on this issue right now, and has been heavily involved in things like drafting legislation. Another good reason to try to avoid legislative action: issues that become political in this split country generally raise major dollars for both sides. And they tend to become performances by political interests with families and constituents used as window dressing. Ultimately, those interests care about themselves and often don't give a hoot about the actual issue other than "how can I raise money and elevate my profile with this?"
I'm curious how you think these laws will hold providers accountable? Those who are merely in it for the money will run away before they can get snared by the beefed-up laws. Those who are really, truly trying to help and care about their population will be the only ones who might be harmed. Regardless, the payouts almost never come from the pockets of the providers themselves. It's a bit like trying to hold drunk drivers accountable by charging their insurance companies for the property damage and medical expenses they cause. Might raise their premiums, will also raise everyone else's if there are enough such cases, and soon you see dominos falling in the whole healthcare system.
Blanket legislative action like this is neither wise nor targeted. And it WILL have unintended effects-whether it has any of the intended ones, or not.