General practitioner Dr Fiona Bisshop’s comment “Trans people should be able to go to their GP to get onto hormone therapy without a lengthy assessment period. It’s not brain surgery” does little to instil confidence into the safety and protection of the vulnerable.
Endocrinology and psychiatry are complex and highly specialised fields in medicine and
there remains a great deal of concern among relevant specialists as to the appropriateness of irreversible, sterilising and mutilating procedures in young people.
I believe that for a general practitioner to suggest that “it’s not brain surgery” in the face of the reality is trivialising a dreadful reality.
I agree that Dr Bishop grossly underestimates the damage that can ensue from initiating puberty blockers and cross gender hormones to children and adolescents.
It may not be Brain Surgery as she says but the consequences can be just as devastating.
Further evidence of the way medicine and the counselling professions can be swept away by dangerous quackery and activism. I chose to resign from my professional counselling body PACFA (Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia) because they were censoring discussions on their private members-only forums regarding the harms of transitioning minors. Even the word “detransitioner” was unmentionable. Their explanation?: Such conversations made the “gender diverse” people on one of their internal bodies feel “unsafe”. When the delicate sensibilities of counsellors matter more than the minds, bodies and futures of vulnerable young people, something’s gone terribly wrong: the moral compass that should be operating has broken.
Yes Jenny, we must tiptoe around the issues lest we are found to be 'offending', and all the while the young and vulnerable are deciding that they're 'born in the wrong body'.
GCN is one of the few options where serious discussion can occur.
The inevitable class actions would predictably see widely spread nets, beyond individual practitioners and State gender clinics, to include bodies like AHPRA ( whose charter is to protect patients from dangerous or harmful treatments) and the relevant colleges. It might be seen to be in their interest to lobby State politicians to introduce legislation to protect minors ( “ mature”, or not!) from medical intervention. By ( finally) exhibiting some responsibility for duty of care, by encouraging appropriate legislation, such action could be relied upon , arguing to reduce their level of exposure to costs in class actions? It would be a long overdue response from those peak professional bodies, to gain legislative protection for future vulnerable minors, “ mature” ones and more!
So far, these bodies like the various children’s commissioners, refuse requests for comment on this issue & either promote the gender groupthink or silently submit to it.
Bernard, the curious ( and inexplicable)!silence from both the relevant colleges , the RANZCP, RACP ( the latter , long ago a “ lost cause”, when it advised the health minister Greg Hunt, against supporting an enquiry into the evidence base for hormonal intervention, as such an enquiry would risk “ causing harm”) demonstrates the powerful position which the activist protagonists hold. Their response to any challenge being that they have all the experience and expertise, so any criticism is easily deflected or derided. They have bluffed the colleges and AHPRA into inaction to date. I would think their continued inaction will only compound their exposure to liability when the rubber of class actions hit the road.
Let’s see how the British relevant colleges, and their equivalent body to our practice regulatory body AHPRA fair in regards to their being , along with the clinics,
the legitimate target in the Tavistock class actions. If harm can be claimed, and established, due to medical intervention then that harm could only be deemed to follow medical practitioners’ collusion in a treatment protocol, emanating from a social science based ideology, which ideology should successfully argued to be anathema to medically trained professionals. I would have thought that the professional bodies responsible for medical training and practice regulation, would be likely to be deemed to carry a share of responsibility for adverse outcomes from inappropriately sanctioned intervention.
Bernard, I would be happy to have my last reply openly posted, to gain others’ opinions regarding my suggestion that the colleges and AHPRA stand vulnerable given their core functions
General practitioner Dr Fiona Bisshop’s comment “Trans people should be able to go to their GP to get onto hormone therapy without a lengthy assessment period. It’s not brain surgery” does little to instil confidence into the safety and protection of the vulnerable.
Endocrinology and psychiatry are complex and highly specialised fields in medicine and
there remains a great deal of concern among relevant specialists as to the appropriateness of irreversible, sterilising and mutilating procedures in young people.
I believe that for a general practitioner to suggest that “it’s not brain surgery” in the face of the reality is trivialising a dreadful reality.
I agree that Dr Bishop grossly underestimates the damage that can ensue from initiating puberty blockers and cross gender hormones to children and adolescents.
It may not be Brain Surgery as she says but the consequences can be just as devastating.
Further evidence of the way medicine and the counselling professions can be swept away by dangerous quackery and activism. I chose to resign from my professional counselling body PACFA (Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia) because they were censoring discussions on their private members-only forums regarding the harms of transitioning minors. Even the word “detransitioner” was unmentionable. Their explanation?: Such conversations made the “gender diverse” people on one of their internal bodies feel “unsafe”. When the delicate sensibilities of counsellors matter more than the minds, bodies and futures of vulnerable young people, something’s gone terribly wrong: the moral compass that should be operating has broken.
Yes Jenny, we must tiptoe around the issues lest we are found to be 'offending', and all the while the young and vulnerable are deciding that they're 'born in the wrong body'.
GCN is one of the few options where serious discussion can occur.
Very true Vincent!
The inevitable class actions would predictably see widely spread nets, beyond individual practitioners and State gender clinics, to include bodies like AHPRA ( whose charter is to protect patients from dangerous or harmful treatments) and the relevant colleges. It might be seen to be in their interest to lobby State politicians to introduce legislation to protect minors ( “ mature”, or not!) from medical intervention. By ( finally) exhibiting some responsibility for duty of care, by encouraging appropriate legislation, such action could be relied upon , arguing to reduce their level of exposure to costs in class actions? It would be a long overdue response from those peak professional bodies, to gain legislative protection for future vulnerable minors, “ mature” ones and more!
So far, these bodies like the various children’s commissioners, refuse requests for comment on this issue & either promote the gender groupthink or silently submit to it.
Bernard, the curious ( and inexplicable)!silence from both the relevant colleges , the RANZCP, RACP ( the latter , long ago a “ lost cause”, when it advised the health minister Greg Hunt, against supporting an enquiry into the evidence base for hormonal intervention, as such an enquiry would risk “ causing harm”) demonstrates the powerful position which the activist protagonists hold. Their response to any challenge being that they have all the experience and expertise, so any criticism is easily deflected or derided. They have bluffed the colleges and AHPRA into inaction to date. I would think their continued inaction will only compound their exposure to liability when the rubber of class actions hit the road.
I don't know, Andrew, if medical professional bodies are exposed to any legal liability for reckless endorsement of gender-affirming treatment.
Let’s see how the British relevant colleges, and their equivalent body to our practice regulatory body AHPRA fair in regards to their being , along with the clinics,
the legitimate target in the Tavistock class actions. If harm can be claimed, and established, due to medical intervention then that harm could only be deemed to follow medical practitioners’ collusion in a treatment protocol, emanating from a social science based ideology, which ideology should successfully argued to be anathema to medically trained professionals. I would have thought that the professional bodies responsible for medical training and practice regulation, would be likely to be deemed to carry a share of responsibility for adverse outcomes from inappropriately sanctioned intervention.
Bernard, I would be happy to have my last reply openly posted, to gain others’ opinions regarding my suggestion that the colleges and AHPRA stand vulnerable given their core functions