An interesting summary of a paper in ‘Current Sexual Health Reports’ of April 2023 reads:
Systematic reviews of evidence conducted by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and England concluded that the risk/benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavourable. As a result, there has been a shift from “gender-affirmative care,” which prioritizes access to medical interventions, to a more conservative approach that addresses psychiatric comorbidities and psychotherapeutically explores the developmental aetiology of the trans identity. Debate about the safety and efficacy of “gender-affirming care” in the USA is only recently emerging.
I've landed in Transtoria after living in London since I was 18. I thought all was lost having left Terf Island which is under huge strain. Can't say how much I appreciate your work Bernard. Honestly... I'm working withGenspect and LGB Alliance and looking at the landscape here in Oz. This is the hill I will die on. Glad to have you shining the light for all of us.
It always come down to money, sex, and power. One of the goals of "gender affirming care" for minors is to create a self-sustaining juggernaut of people stuck in an endlessly spiraling loop of financially lucrative medical procedures and experimental treatments. Insurers refusing to cover claims is a good step but there are many more steps to take.
The proposal that general practitioners become more independently involved in managing young people with gender dysphoria highlights the fact that the “Best practice medical treatment for gender dysphoria is offered following a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment”.
However, it is important to remember that it is those very institutions, such as the Royal Children’s Hospital, have never undertake a double-blind clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of a treatment in young people that involves irreversible sterilisation, hormonal and surgical interventions.
As a way or reminder, the main purpose of a double-blind clinical is to prevent bias when evaluating patient outcomes
Thus, it could be argued the gold-standard being referred to (the multidisciplinary facility) has no acceptable evidence of such status.
Excellent to hear another medical indemnity provider is getting the wobbles on teen sterilisation and breast amputation. God bless the actuaries!
An interesting summary of a paper in ‘Current Sexual Health Reports’ of April 2023 reads:
Systematic reviews of evidence conducted by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and England concluded that the risk/benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavourable. As a result, there has been a shift from “gender-affirmative care,” which prioritizes access to medical interventions, to a more conservative approach that addresses psychiatric comorbidities and psychotherapeutically explores the developmental aetiology of the trans identity. Debate about the safety and efficacy of “gender-affirming care” in the USA is only recently emerging.
I've landed in Transtoria after living in London since I was 18. I thought all was lost having left Terf Island which is under huge strain. Can't say how much I appreciate your work Bernard. Honestly... I'm working withGenspect and LGB Alliance and looking at the landscape here in Oz. This is the hill I will die on. Glad to have you shining the light for all of us.
The mind continues to boggle.
Looking forward to seeing these gender cowboys in the dock.
It always come down to money, sex, and power. One of the goals of "gender affirming care" for minors is to create a self-sustaining juggernaut of people stuck in an endlessly spiraling loop of financially lucrative medical procedures and experimental treatments. Insurers refusing to cover claims is a good step but there are many more steps to take.
The proposal that general practitioners become more independently involved in managing young people with gender dysphoria highlights the fact that the “Best practice medical treatment for gender dysphoria is offered following a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment”.
However, it is important to remember that it is those very institutions, such as the Royal Children’s Hospital, have never undertake a double-blind clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of a treatment in young people that involves irreversible sterilisation, hormonal and surgical interventions.
As a way or reminder, the main purpose of a double-blind clinical is to prevent bias when evaluating patient outcomes
Thus, it could be argued the gold-standard being referred to (the multidisciplinary facility) has no acceptable evidence of such status.
The blind leading the blind?