And we're back!
Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 10:57:46 AM1) Your quote makes it seem like you're attributing BB's words to me.
Quote2) When people are taking to the streets in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" (we had one protest n town just this weekend - using the same approach as the convoy sympathy protests we had during that time), when they're protesting at schools and doxxing teachers because they hate "radical gender ideology", when legislation is being passed to ensure trans kids don't get support - again in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" - you think it's "not healthy in a democracy" to link those things to a politician who makes "fighting radical gender ideology" a speaking point?Is this because the article used the term "rooted in"? Or is it because you're persuaded by BB's argument that Pierre Poillievre doesn't actually mean anything specific when he says he think we should "fight radical gender ideology" even though actual specific policy changes are being argued for by people using those exact terms.
QuoteIf there's a problem, based on your description it seems it's one of of misaligned incentives in profit driven medical care rather than ideology.
QuoteCertainly this has recently become a major talking point and concern for the right wing across a number of countries.
QuoteThe other fact is that for a number of circumstances medical care providers are able to assess whether a minor has capacity to give consent. That is that they both understand the decision they are making and have the mental capacity to determine the risks and benefits. But more to the point, the medical professional must also make the medical judgment that the treatment is in the best interests of their patient.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 02:40:11 PMYes, this is something that is happening now in the appropriate medical circumstances.I will post the same case I linked for BB which describes what must occur for that medical treatment to occur.https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/20/00/2020BCCA0011.htm
QuoteAB has identified as male since he was 11 years old. At 12, he began to socially transition, enrolling in school under a chosen male name and using male pronouns with his teachers and peers. Around 13 years of age, after two years of consistently identifying as male, AB's persistent discomfort with his body led him to want to take steps to appear more masculine. With the support of his mother, AB went to see a registered psychologist, Dr. IJ, for a number of sessions. Following these sessions, Dr. IJ finalized an assessment and treatment plan for AB. The plan concluded that AB met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. As described in the consent form signed by AB, gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition where a person experiences significant distress because the gender identity they experience differs from their genetic or biological gender, and how others perceive them. Dr. IJ found that AB would be a good candidate for hormone treatment, and referred him to the BC Children's Hospital (BCCH) for further assessment. In August 2018, AB met with pediatric endocrinologist Dr. GH at the Gender Clinic at BCCH. Dr. GH conducted a further assessment of AB and again determined that masculinizing hormone treatment was both reasonable in the circumstances and in AB's best interests. He explained the nature, consequences, and foreseeable risks and benefits of the treatment to AB, presenting a detailed consent form that laid out these risks. AB decided to proceed with the treatment, and signed the form. AB's mother, who supported him throughout this process, also signed the form. Upon learning AB's father was not aware he was pursuing this treatment, Dr. GH postponed its start in order to present information to AB's father, CD. CD emailed the clinic a few days later expressing his opposition to the proposed treatment. From August to December 2018, a social worker at the clinic made "numerous attempts" to set up a meeting between Dr. GH and CD to discuss the proposed treatment. CD did not attend at the clinic and did not engage with the medical team. On 1 December 2018, Dr. GH and social worker UV sent a letter to CD. The letter addressed CD's disagreement with the treatment and explained that, under s. 17 of the Infants Act, minors are permitted to consent to their own medical treatment. The letter explained that the consent of a parent is not required to administer health care to a minor where the health care provider is satisfied the minor understands a treatment's nature and consequences, and has concluded the health care is in the minor's best interests. It informed CD that the BCCH medical team had assessed AB and found him capable, meaning CD's consent was not required for AB to proceed with treatment. After litigation commenced, Dr. GH took further steps to ensure his capacity assessment of AB was correct. He asked for an opinion from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) Ethics Service, which examined his finding of capacity and agreed that AB demonstrated capacity to understand the treatment. The ethics opinion suggested that, while not necessary, Dr. GH may wish to have an additional capacity assessment done by a provider outside the current care team in order to assuage CD's concerns and improve family dynamics. Dr. GH referred AB to Dr. MN, a psychiatrist at BCCH in the BC Mental Health Centre, who assessed AB and found that he demonstrated a detailed understanding of the risks and benefits of the treatment. Dr. MN further assessed AB's mental status, finding he displayed reasonable judgment and insight.
QuoteIf one was inclined to look for "radical gender ideologists" pushing children into getting irreversible medical treatments for gender dysphoria for ideological reasons, who are the most likely candidates here? I presume it's a combination of medical professionals and psychiatrists? Are those people operating independently, or are there a number of second opinions involved?
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 02:47:59 PMHaving said that, my understanding is, that there is very little data and there have been very few long term studies - which experts in trans care for young people are calling out for. And is also why Tavistock's failures around record-keeping and follow up for over 30 years of specialist care is a huge shame. They have a view but it is, from what I've read, caveated with the need for more research. The caveating doesn't necessarily survive in the press releases or activism around what is appropriate care, which is exactly what you'd expect. And other medical experts have reached a different view - on the same lack of underlying long term research
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 02:47:59 PMSorry - not my intent, just laziness on quotes.
QuoteMainly the "rooted in". Those are weasel words to insinuate without publishing something actionable. Also cheaper than reporting on LGBT+ issues, because it's media commentary.
QuoteI also think it is unhealthy, particularly in a democracy, to move from talking about the thing to talking about discourse. It is, in it's way, like Poilievre saying "radical gender ideology" or, say, talking about "cultural Marxism" or queer theory (which is, at least, a real thing). I think it's not a massive leap to conspiracy-mindedness, constantly de-coding what people are "really" meaning/where that discourse has come from. I think it's the path to Russian politics where everything is codes, conspiracies, discourse and meanings beyond the meaning. I think it's a really dangerous slippery slope.
QuoteTalk about the thing - and I think that's the challenge to Poilievre too. It should be about making him uncomfortable by asking what he means and on the details and the facts.
QuoteThis was an NHS clinic although money played a role in terms of state funding for that NHS Trust. The FT review with that section of that book (by a BBC journalist) on the Tavistock clinic, is good:https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-6a8796ea5d10It has now been shut down partly because of failures in care, also in record keeping so once someone was treated by the clinic they were gone from the data. But also because the approach of having this single national centre of excellence in gender identity services for young people made sense when it was founded in 1989 - and even 2009 when it had under 100 referrals a year. When it was receiving thousands, it was clearly not working and the recommendation from the independent review which recommended it was closed is to establish specialist services distributed across the country (as well as better record keeping, better integration with counselling and other services and more research).It's sadly not the profit motive (but it did becomoe a huge source of revenue for the trust because it appears to have started operating as a bit of a conveyor belt). Ideology I think plays a part - an activist charity (that I've actually organised a fundraiser for) seems to have been too involved to be healthy. But also a wider story of a funding crisis particularly for mental health treatments (it was in a mental health trust) and a huge increase in demand for this type of care and stretched staff.
QuoteMedical authorities in the UK, France, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden (the latter lot all under left-wing governments) have recommended against certain treatments such as puberty blockers for people under 18. In all cases they've basically said it should only be prescribed in exceptional circumstances, or in a research setting until there's more and better data (particularly in the long term). In the UK those recommendations have not come from anyone political but specialist NHS reviews - my understanding is they have also been made independently by clinicians in those other countries too.The challenge, of course, is that the kids who may benefit are here now. So it's a decision that is balancing potential harms.
Page created in 0.121 seconds with 19 queries.