I will communicate with RCH Gender Clinic and seek their clarification on this point, although I'm not optimistic that I will receive a response as I have questioned them in the past on this matter with no feedback.
Bernard, prof John Whitehall ( paediatric professor Western Sydney university) has just published in the Jan 22nd edition of Quadrant on the non reproductive risks associated with GnRHa. His contributions have been absent over recent years and have all appeared ( to my knowledge) in Quadrant. This recent article is scholarly and would be anathema to the editors of professional journals. His reference to veterinarian research was made years ago regarding puberty blockers and cognitive impairment but his voice was either dismissed or derided. He likely so suffered as his approach was guided by his openly expressed Christian faith. Sadly, there is nothing more guaranteed to meet such response than to suggest a pastoral approach in treatment. Do pick up a copy of the Jan 22 edition of Quadrant
Maybe you want to cc others (their office that deals with insurance, some group that is pursuing legal actions elsewhere in Australia??), it appears that it is going to also at some point become a question of deniability--they are being given these important questions and information and not responding.
It will be the lawyers and the insurance companies that slow down this run-away train. If clinicians are aware that there are developmental dangers, and a plaintiff can prove that they were aware or should have been aware, but failed to inform the patient of this possibility, then they are guilty of malpractice, at least in regards to obtaining true informed consent.
The insurer in Australia that restricted indemnity cover said it could not price the risk. I suspect this is not only because the likely regret rate is unclear but also because the media, medical societies & governments have created a miasma of misinformation about this field, so that it is difficult to know whom to trust.
More research will bring clarification, and force the medical profession to be more forthcoming to prospective patients, and to the parents, in the case of minors. There are a few instances where I'm thankful for plaintiff lawyers and their willingness to engage in new areas of litigation -- this is one of them.
I think more and more victims will be willing to come forward and bring legal action against these clinics and doctors as they realize they were duped and misinformed as to the reality of the surgeries and life-long drug dependence. The damning results of the current research finally being done will be the nail in the coffin for a lot of this butchery.
Pat, if we see the individual and class actions, why would the legal net be not cast to include more than just , say, individual clinicians , but to also deem State Health departments, AHPRA , and the relevant colleges to have their own part to play in facilitating “GAC” for vulnerable children? The latter two bodies are ostensibly there to , respectively, protect the public from inappropriate medical treatments, in the case of the statutory body , and , in the case of the colleges, to be responsible for both the training on relevant specialists, and for the development of treatment protocols. Just asking.
The choice of defendant is entirely up to the lawyer and and their client and depends on the strength of the evidence supporting an action. The surgeons and prescribing clinicians would be the first and most obvious subjects of a lawsuit because they would be responsible first, for the direct harm, and second, for failing to fully inform the patient. But certainly, the sky is the limit when it comes to choosing defendants.
Interesting!
I will communicate with RCH Gender Clinic and seek their clarification on this point, although I'm not optimistic that I will receive a response as I have questioned them in the past on this matter with no feedback.
Bernard, prof John Whitehall ( paediatric professor Western Sydney university) has just published in the Jan 22nd edition of Quadrant on the non reproductive risks associated with GnRHa. His contributions have been absent over recent years and have all appeared ( to my knowledge) in Quadrant. This recent article is scholarly and would be anathema to the editors of professional journals. His reference to veterinarian research was made years ago regarding puberty blockers and cognitive impairment but his voice was either dismissed or derided. He likely so suffered as his approach was guided by his openly expressed Christian faith. Sadly, there is nothing more guaranteed to meet such response than to suggest a pastoral approach in treatment. Do pick up a copy of the Jan 22 edition of Quadrant
Thanks Andrew. I plan to reference John’s paper in an article that I’m now writing. It was he who first alerted me to the blocker-brain issue. B
Maybe you want to cc others (their office that deals with insurance, some group that is pursuing legal actions elsewhere in Australia??), it appears that it is going to also at some point become a question of deniability--they are being given these important questions and information and not responding.
It will be the lawyers and the insurance companies that slow down this run-away train. If clinicians are aware that there are developmental dangers, and a plaintiff can prove that they were aware or should have been aware, but failed to inform the patient of this possibility, then they are guilty of malpractice, at least in regards to obtaining true informed consent.
The insurer in Australia that restricted indemnity cover said it could not price the risk. I suspect this is not only because the likely regret rate is unclear but also because the media, medical societies & governments have created a miasma of misinformation about this field, so that it is difficult to know whom to trust.
More research will bring clarification, and force the medical profession to be more forthcoming to prospective patients, and to the parents, in the case of minors. There are a few instances where I'm thankful for plaintiff lawyers and their willingness to engage in new areas of litigation -- this is one of them.
There's a list of US lawsuits here, for instance: https://www.broadview.news/p/eleven-lawsuits-by-detransitioners
and I know there is at least one in Australia that is publicly announced.
I think more and more victims will be willing to come forward and bring legal action against these clinics and doctors as they realize they were duped and misinformed as to the reality of the surgeries and life-long drug dependence. The damning results of the current research finally being done will be the nail in the coffin for a lot of this butchery.
Pat, if we see the individual and class actions, why would the legal net be not cast to include more than just , say, individual clinicians , but to also deem State Health departments, AHPRA , and the relevant colleges to have their own part to play in facilitating “GAC” for vulnerable children? The latter two bodies are ostensibly there to , respectively, protect the public from inappropriate medical treatments, in the case of the statutory body , and , in the case of the colleges, to be responsible for both the training on relevant specialists, and for the development of treatment protocols. Just asking.
The choice of defendant is entirely up to the lawyer and and their client and depends on the strength of the evidence supporting an action. The surgeons and prescribing clinicians would be the first and most obvious subjects of a lawsuit because they would be responsible first, for the direct harm, and second, for failing to fully inform the patient. But certainly, the sky is the limit when it comes to choosing defendants.