Hi Bernard, thanks for the time and effort you put in. I have two suggestions/ comments
1 . “Psychosocial support” means little; what they need is “professional supportive psychotherapy”.
Evidence is that with that, most end up with their natal gender.
2. From discussion with the Qld psychiatrist who has been a whistleblower, and the Cass report, I believe a large part of the problem has been INADEQUATE ASSESSMENT; has this been woke “must just believe what kids say” ?; in Psychiatry things are rarely as they seem or as they first present.
Dr John Buchanan MBBS, MMed, DPM, FRACP, FRANZCP retired Consultant Psychiatrist
OUR MEDICAL INSTITIUTIOINS HAVE PPROMOTED THE ‘AFFIRMATIVE MODEL OF GENDER CARE’ IN A MOST INAPPROPRIATE & DANGEROUS MANNER -
In 1987 an Australian surgeon developed an Intravaginal Sling Device (IVS) to treat pelvic floor prolapse in women, a condition a that sometimes followed childbirth.
From 1998 the AMA acted as exclusive distributor for the device which was introduced without appropriate studies to confirm its efficacy and safety.
By 2002 the IVS was in widespread use in Australis the US and multiple locations globally.
Over time some women thus treated reported complications including chronic pain, urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, & migration of the device into the vaginal wall.
As its use spread globally so too did ever more reports of adverse outcomes. Surgical removal difficult due to migration & entangled with pelvic tissue.
Ultimately the IVS caused irreversible damage to thousands of women resulting in billions of dollars in legal settlements across multiple countries.
. . . . Fast forward more than two decades: The AMA has endorsed and promoted the ‘Affirmative Model of Gender’ and, as in the case of the IVS no studies had been undertaken to confirm the safety and efficacy of the. Wil they ever learn?
. . . as well as the AMA many of our prestigious medical organisations have fallen in line to support this nonsense.
Absolutely. The problem remains the method these organisations use to assess these treatments when they become controversial. Typically they outsource any investigation to a committee from the specialty involved without considering whether the committee has vested interests or has been captured by activists.
You do not need to be an expert in the field to assess trial data and what they should do is form a committee from disinterested clinicians.
We might then avoid the problem of the author of a guideline endorsing the same guideline which was severely criticised in the recent court case in Australia.
My sister had to have this operation. She very carefully researched and eventually had the safest intervention to fix the problem. It was quite successful. She was aware of the sling and its problems.
Trying not to get my hopes up but please, please, please let this be the mouse that sank the boat, a story my children loved reading at a time before the Family Court green lit a cruel medical experiment on Georgie Stone and every Australian child since.
Sometimes when change is needed, people may wait for others to go first. When action happens, more people get emboldened and contribute to change. A good example of this was enabling clean air in indoor public spaces (i.e. no smoking).
It still seems to me that when it comes to children and sex confusion it is better to be in a holding pattern and do nothing except talk, pray and love till adulthood. By then most of it should be resolved as these lovely people realise there is more than one way to be a female or a male. In many childhood conditions these days we seem to jump the gun in our panic and try to intervene medically.
In fact in many medical or psychological situations a wait and see attitude with adults is probably needed as well.
Hi Bernard, thanks for the time and effort you put in. I have two suggestions/ comments
1 . “Psychosocial support” means little; what they need is “professional supportive psychotherapy”.
Evidence is that with that, most end up with their natal gender.
2. From discussion with the Qld psychiatrist who has been a whistleblower, and the Cass report, I believe a large part of the problem has been INADEQUATE ASSESSMENT; has this been woke “must just believe what kids say” ?; in Psychiatry things are rarely as they seem or as they first present.
Dr John Buchanan MBBS, MMed, DPM, FRACP, FRANZCP retired Consultant Psychiatrist
OUR MEDICAL INSTITIUTIOINS HAVE PPROMOTED THE ‘AFFIRMATIVE MODEL OF GENDER CARE’ IN A MOST INAPPROPRIATE & DANGEROUS MANNER -
In 1987 an Australian surgeon developed an Intravaginal Sling Device (IVS) to treat pelvic floor prolapse in women, a condition a that sometimes followed childbirth.
From 1998 the AMA acted as exclusive distributor for the device which was introduced without appropriate studies to confirm its efficacy and safety.
By 2002 the IVS was in widespread use in Australis the US and multiple locations globally.
Over time some women thus treated reported complications including chronic pain, urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, & migration of the device into the vaginal wall.
As its use spread globally so too did ever more reports of adverse outcomes. Surgical removal difficult due to migration & entangled with pelvic tissue.
Ultimately the IVS caused irreversible damage to thousands of women resulting in billions of dollars in legal settlements across multiple countries.
. . . . Fast forward more than two decades: The AMA has endorsed and promoted the ‘Affirmative Model of Gender’ and, as in the case of the IVS no studies had been undertaken to confirm the safety and efficacy of the. Wil they ever learn?
. . . as well as the AMA many of our prestigious medical organisations have fallen in line to support this nonsense.
Absolutely. The problem remains the method these organisations use to assess these treatments when they become controversial. Typically they outsource any investigation to a committee from the specialty involved without considering whether the committee has vested interests or has been captured by activists.
You do not need to be an expert in the field to assess trial data and what they should do is form a committee from disinterested clinicians.
We might then avoid the problem of the author of a guideline endorsing the same guideline which was severely criticised in the recent court case in Australia.
My sister had to have this operation. She very carefully researched and eventually had the safest intervention to fix the problem. It was quite successful. She was aware of the sling and its problems.
The AMA seems to be a problem in many situations.
Trying not to get my hopes up but please, please, please let this be the mouse that sank the boat, a story my children loved reading at a time before the Family Court green lit a cruel medical experiment on Georgie Stone and every Australian child since.
Sometimes when change is needed, people may wait for others to go first. When action happens, more people get emboldened and contribute to change. A good example of this was enabling clean air in indoor public spaces (i.e. no smoking).
It still seems to me that when it comes to children and sex confusion it is better to be in a holding pattern and do nothing except talk, pray and love till adulthood. By then most of it should be resolved as these lovely people realise there is more than one way to be a female or a male. In many childhood conditions these days we seem to jump the gun in our panic and try to intervene medically.
In fact in many medical or psychological situations a wait and see attitude with adults is probably needed as well.