I wonder if these poor excuses for medical practitioners would be so cavalier if it was their child that they were experimenting on? It just beggars belief- until I think about the attitude of many doctors towards the experimental COVID mRNA shots.
It is not by coincidence that the child referenced in this article is autistic. Multiple studies indicate that some 8% of the children presenting to gender clinics seeking ‘transition’ are on the autism spectrum (ASD). They are hugely disproportionately represented.
As if that were not sufficient bias against the wellbeing of those seeking ‘transition’, studies indicate that children on the autism spectrum are some thirty times more likely to contemplate suicide than their non autistic counterparts.
Perhaps therein is the somewhat twisted ‘promotional rationale’ so frequently marketed by gender clinics, that they ‘must intervene in order to prevent suicide’.
. . . . Back to the subject of the current GCN article, the sad chid given the ‘loading dose’ of testosterone to “initiate masculinisation of her body”. What are the the odds of this child ever leading a happy life following her chemical and surgical mutilation?
"England’s High Court heard expert evidence that the teenager, known as J, whose history included autism, self-harm and anorexia, had identified as a boy and was prescribed online a double (“loading”) dose of adult-level testosterone to initiate masculinisation of her body."
That alone warrants a jail term for all at the clinic and all who wrote such guidelines. This teen never had a chance. How can she even understand what was being done to her or give meaningful consent given those comorbidities?
We have , in AHPRA, a regulatory body which has inexplicably sat on it’s hands for a period of time where there has been ample time to have expected the body to have prioritized it’s charter and to have so acted to protect future vulnerable children. Can this body’s position be , like the collaboration of medical professionals, an example of the triumph of empathy over medical responsibility?
In my experience, AHPRA like to go for low hanging fruit. I'm thinking of a doctor I worked for, who had no complaints from patients, but whose cautious approach (and dislike of it by other doctors, who made the complaints) had her before their star chamber twice. Meanwhile during the same period several other doctors were reported for sexually abusing patients and the like, and they seemed to pay no attention (until these cases became front page news and they had to account for why they hadn't acted).
So, Dr Lewis in stating the double dose given by the Gender GP in England would be “unlawful” in Australia- appears to have been mistaken at the ethics of our Australian Doctors?
Bernard , in the illustrated case of “ J” which reached England’s high court, do we know who instigated the court action? Specifically, did the English equivalent statuary regulatory body to our AHPRA play any role ?
It’s simply horrifying that doctors and judicial authorities can countenance creating a disease state in vulnerable kids and young people, and that they justify this by claiming that opposite-sex puberty can be “emulated” or even more ridiculously, actually “achieved”. This is pure fantasy.
Testosterone at the levels naturally seen in pubescent boys aids development of male sex organs and male reproductive functions, among multiple other male-specific bodily changes. There is no way a female can ever experience male puberty. At best she can hope to become a masculine-appearing female with all the severe, attendant health problems such derangement of her natural physiology inevitably brings.
Medicine cannot “create” puberty, much less opposite-sex puberty. This is just another hubristic euphemism for what will one day be seen as medical malpractice on a grand scale: the knowing infliction of harm, even if done in the (non evidence-based) belief that it’s for “the greater good” of the patient.
It's mind bending. The message sent by the case of J is that the correct dose of testosterone was not given. And yet what is the correct dose of exogenous testosterone for a female body? Not long ago, the answer from every endocrinologist, I imagine, would have been "zero".
I wonder if these poor excuses for medical practitioners would be so cavalier if it was their child that they were experimenting on? It just beggars belief- until I think about the attitude of many doctors towards the experimental COVID mRNA shots.
It is not by coincidence that the child referenced in this article is autistic. Multiple studies indicate that some 8% of the children presenting to gender clinics seeking ‘transition’ are on the autism spectrum (ASD). They are hugely disproportionately represented.
As if that were not sufficient bias against the wellbeing of those seeking ‘transition’, studies indicate that children on the autism spectrum are some thirty times more likely to contemplate suicide than their non autistic counterparts.
Perhaps therein is the somewhat twisted ‘promotional rationale’ so frequently marketed by gender clinics, that they ‘must intervene in order to prevent suicide’.
. . . . Back to the subject of the current GCN article, the sad chid given the ‘loading dose’ of testosterone to “initiate masculinisation of her body”. What are the the odds of this child ever leading a happy life following her chemical and surgical mutilation?
"England’s High Court heard expert evidence that the teenager, known as J, whose history included autism, self-harm and anorexia, had identified as a boy and was prescribed online a double (“loading”) dose of adult-level testosterone to initiate masculinisation of her body."
That alone warrants a jail term for all at the clinic and all who wrote such guidelines. This teen never had a chance. How can she even understand what was being done to her or give meaningful consent given those comorbidities?
We have , in AHPRA, a regulatory body which has inexplicably sat on it’s hands for a period of time where there has been ample time to have expected the body to have prioritized it’s charter and to have so acted to protect future vulnerable children. Can this body’s position be , like the collaboration of medical professionals, an example of the triumph of empathy over medical responsibility?
In my experience, AHPRA like to go for low hanging fruit. I'm thinking of a doctor I worked for, who had no complaints from patients, but whose cautious approach (and dislike of it by other doctors, who made the complaints) had her before their star chamber twice. Meanwhile during the same period several other doctors were reported for sexually abusing patients and the like, and they seemed to pay no attention (until these cases became front page news and they had to account for why they hadn't acted).
So, Dr Lewis in stating the double dose given by the Gender GP in England would be “unlawful” in Australia- appears to have been mistaken at the ethics of our Australian Doctors?
It’s not clear from the judgment why this treatment would be unlawful in Oz. Could be issues other than the dose.
Bernard , in the illustrated case of “ J” which reached England’s high court, do we know who instigated the court action? Specifically, did the English equivalent statuary regulatory body to our AHPRA play any role ?
It’s simply horrifying that doctors and judicial authorities can countenance creating a disease state in vulnerable kids and young people, and that they justify this by claiming that opposite-sex puberty can be “emulated” or even more ridiculously, actually “achieved”. This is pure fantasy.
Testosterone at the levels naturally seen in pubescent boys aids development of male sex organs and male reproductive functions, among multiple other male-specific bodily changes. There is no way a female can ever experience male puberty. At best she can hope to become a masculine-appearing female with all the severe, attendant health problems such derangement of her natural physiology inevitably brings.
Medicine cannot “create” puberty, much less opposite-sex puberty. This is just another hubristic euphemism for what will one day be seen as medical malpractice on a grand scale: the knowing infliction of harm, even if done in the (non evidence-based) belief that it’s for “the greater good” of the patient.
It's mind bending. The message sent by the case of J is that the correct dose of testosterone was not given. And yet what is the correct dose of exogenous testosterone for a female body? Not long ago, the answer from every endocrinologist, I imagine, would have been "zero".
Exactly. Gender-affirming clinicians are turning themselves inside out to try to find a way to justify this complete reversal of medical sense.