I was one of the parents interviewed. It is heartening to read your analysis, and have your accessible and learned take on the entirety of the report. Easier to digest, plus I trust your professional understanding and sound interpretation.
It is a strange report. Much of it is “he said/she said but we sit in the fence”. To me it shows the extent of ideological capture & confusion in higher ed & the bureaucracy.
While the Australian Medical Association (AMA) strongly supports gender-affirming care it is appropriate to question the Association’s record in advising the public as to the efficacy and safety of medical interventions. Does the AMA have a flawless record in relation to recommending a model of care?
The answer seems to be ‘not always’:
The AMA’s endorsement and marketing of Intravaginal Sling device (IVS) to treat pelvic dysfunction in women has been referred to as ‘the Worst medical scandal since Thalidomide’
I reference a couple of news articles that outline the disaster that followed the treatment endorsed and marketed by the AMA.
Given the magnitude of the damage done by the IVS device it would be reasonable to expect that the AMA would adopt a most cautious approach to treating children (a cohort heavily burdened with mental health comorbidities) with a cocktail of hormones and followed up with mutilating surgery and lifelong.
Thank you for this, Bernard.
I was one of the parents interviewed. It is heartening to read your analysis, and have your accessible and learned take on the entirety of the report. Easier to digest, plus I trust your professional understanding and sound interpretation.
Thanks
It is a strange report. Much of it is “he said/she said but we sit in the fence”. To me it shows the extent of ideological capture & confusion in higher ed & the bureaucracy.
While the Australian Medical Association (AMA) strongly supports gender-affirming care it is appropriate to question the Association’s record in advising the public as to the efficacy and safety of medical interventions. Does the AMA have a flawless record in relation to recommending a model of care?
The answer seems to be ‘not always’:
The AMA’s endorsement and marketing of Intravaginal Sling device (IVS) to treat pelvic dysfunction in women has been referred to as ‘the Worst medical scandal since Thalidomide’
I reference a couple of news articles that outline the disaster that followed the treatment endorsed and marketed by the AMA.
• https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/australian-medical-association-president-confirms-ama-was-role-in-pelvic-mesh-scandal-20170822-gy1hzj.html
• https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/life-after-mesh-one-patient-s-harrowing-experience
Given the magnitude of the damage done by the IVS device it would be reasonable to expect that the AMA would adopt a most cautious approach to treating children (a cohort heavily burdened with mental health comorbidities) with a cocktail of hormones and followed up with mutilating surgery and lifelong.