It is I not surprising that medical students have hitched their wagon alongside the pro affirmative model. Our campuses are becoming ever more woke, misguided and obsessed with nonsense.
The fact that AMSA’s statement claim that “gender-affirming treatment was based on high-quality evidence” says a lot as to their grasp of the concept of evidence based medicine.
The logical endpoint for a "trans" child is, at best, a life of misery and nonstop medical interventions, and, at worst, an early death either by suicide or surgical complications. This is a horror show.
Dear universe, please let the Senate vote for a national enquiry into the evidence for medicalised paediatric care when it resumes 31 July. Thanks A Mum.
Never know, but I’m told Hanson’s motion is unlikely to pass. And if Labor & the Greens did allow an inquiry into gender clinics it could well be about removing obstacles to further expansion of gender-affirming care.
Bernard, though this might be viewed as either irrelevant/insignificant ( or even inappropriate?) , I think it is perhaps central and relevant to ask, do we know if there are transgender members of those members , ( within which, I presume a policy committee?) of , say, the RACP who have responded to that 2020 reply from it’s spokesman Mark Lane, to then federal Health minister Hunt with regard to his request for advice on a federal government national enquiry “ or similar process “
I raise this , as it might go some way to our understanding the nature of the response gained at the time, from the RACP spokesman, and then the subsequent silence from further members’ enquiries. To draw a comparison, when Ian Finkle , previous Chief Scientist was asked in a Senate Estimates public hearing, he replied , on behalf of the Australian Academy of Science that “ a woman was anyone who claimed to be a woman”, I looked at the publicly listed members of this leading eclectic scientific body , which includes self declared transgender individuals. “ So what” some might say, and , as adults, indeed “so what”, I agree
For me though this helped me understand his reply, which was the same to that we heard from Brendan Murphy , previous Chief Medical Officer , and medical practitioner ( ex renal physician) and current Secretary of the Department of Health , when asked the same question in another public Senate Estimates meeting.
The very demographic makeup of our leading scientific institutions helps to understand their policy positions, which appear currently, simultaneously unassailable, and , let’s say, puzzlingly disappointing at best, inexplicable, at worst.
It appears the protagonists are well entrenched, and certainly willing to “ fight harder”.
Personally, on reflection after recent retirement, I feel too much gratitude to what my profession afforded me in terms of the trust obtained, to not use every opportunity to voice support for a legal recalibration of obligatory affirmation treatment protocol of childhood GD.
Many thanks Bernard for your own continued personal contributions, and your coordination of our thoughts. Much appreciated. A job ahead for politicians and legislators, my profession has been largely bluffed , when such statements can come as from the 2020 RACP reply to Greg Hunt. We are in trouble.
The Labor Government will never order an inquiry. None of the Labor States will.
The only chance for an inquiry is the sole remaining Liberal State, Tasmania and I expect the chances of that happening are close to zero with the current Premier.
I think the only way to stop this medical disaster is through the courts or with a new Liberal Govt( hopefully wihout any LINOs).
When science is corrupted as in the example you cite:
"a woman was anyone who claimed to be a woman”,
there is really nowhere to go. Without respecting scientific realities medicine becomes the domain of the absurd. Gender transition may be just the beginning.
Vincent, the way we follow American culture, including medicine, who would be shocked if there were , already, our own equivalent Racheal Levines within , say, college policy working groups? I have no idea , and if adults, so what, you say, except such individuals have proved powerful proponents of medical intervention in minors, and have seemingly sought and gained unassailable positions, as the Australian Academy of Science illustrates. Just asking , to try to fully understand how we got to this point where it is anathema to raise any challenge to support for “ gender identity “ having any claim to relevance in medical treatment protocol , specifically, in relation to minors.
Yes, Guy, we recall the federal ALP conference in 2018 endorsed the policy of obligatory “ affirmation “ model of care for minors ( along with the punitive “ anti conversion “ therapy for miscreant clinicians) and such policy endorsements is binding, across all ALP state jurisdictions. Were the current Qld opposition LNP to gain government next year , a preliminary tactic, for the current opposition Health spokesperson, would be to obtain the intuitively majority opinion ( unsupportive of hormonal intervention in minors) of state registered Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists ( via a , say, voluntary plebiscite/ secret ballot) providing such powerful evidence, on which to rely, in proposing a bill to the next parliament to mandate obligatory deferment of hormonal intervention in minors. The bill might also include the redaction of the current punitive “ anti conversion “ legislation. For as long as Health remains a statutory State Government responsibility such might prevent any overriding of a Federal ALP Government? So, Queensland has an opportunity to perhaps lead a charge, State by State, in providing the legislative change? What alternate path is there, to obtain protection for future vulnerable children, other than State by State legislation, backed with the intuitive majority from relevant specialist clinicians. There would be skin and hair flying, to incrementally introduce such legislative changes-as the subset ( likely minority) of protagonists claim all experience and clinical “ knowledge “ and so to their minds easily justify derision or dismissing of others.
It is I not surprising that medical students have hitched their wagon alongside the pro affirmative model. Our campuses are becoming ever more woke, misguided and obsessed with nonsense.
The fact that AMSA’s statement claim that “gender-affirming treatment was based on high-quality evidence” says a lot as to their grasp of the concept of evidence based medicine.
And once again it would be the executive of the AMSA who made the decision without consulting the members.
Statement endorsed by “AMSA Queer” & president of the gender-affirming lobby AusPATH.
The logical endpoint for a "trans" child is, at best, a life of misery and nonstop medical interventions, and, at worst, an early death either by suicide or surgical complications. This is a horror show.
I had to read right through this time.
Dear universe, please let the Senate vote for a national enquiry into the evidence for medicalised paediatric care when it resumes 31 July. Thanks A Mum.
Never know, but I’m told Hanson’s motion is unlikely to pass. And if Labor & the Greens did allow an inquiry into gender clinics it could well be about removing obstacles to further expansion of gender-affirming care.
Bernard, though this might be viewed as either irrelevant/insignificant ( or even inappropriate?) , I think it is perhaps central and relevant to ask, do we know if there are transgender members of those members , ( within which, I presume a policy committee?) of , say, the RACP who have responded to that 2020 reply from it’s spokesman Mark Lane, to then federal Health minister Hunt with regard to his request for advice on a federal government national enquiry “ or similar process “
I raise this , as it might go some way to our understanding the nature of the response gained at the time, from the RACP spokesman, and then the subsequent silence from further members’ enquiries. To draw a comparison, when Ian Finkle , previous Chief Scientist was asked in a Senate Estimates public hearing, he replied , on behalf of the Australian Academy of Science that “ a woman was anyone who claimed to be a woman”, I looked at the publicly listed members of this leading eclectic scientific body , which includes self declared transgender individuals. “ So what” some might say, and , as adults, indeed “so what”, I agree
For me though this helped me understand his reply, which was the same to that we heard from Brendan Murphy , previous Chief Medical Officer , and medical practitioner ( ex renal physician) and current Secretary of the Department of Health , when asked the same question in another public Senate Estimates meeting.
The very demographic makeup of our leading scientific institutions helps to understand their policy positions, which appear currently, simultaneously unassailable, and , let’s say, puzzlingly disappointing at best, inexplicable, at worst.
It appears the protagonists are well entrenched, and certainly willing to “ fight harder”.
Personally, on reflection after recent retirement, I feel too much gratitude to what my profession afforded me in terms of the trust obtained, to not use every opportunity to voice support for a legal recalibration of obligatory affirmation treatment protocol of childhood GD.
Many thanks Bernard for your own continued personal contributions, and your coordination of our thoughts. Much appreciated. A job ahead for politicians and legislators, my profession has been largely bluffed , when such statements can come as from the 2020 RACP reply to Greg Hunt. We are in trouble.
The Labor Government will never order an inquiry. None of the Labor States will.
The only chance for an inquiry is the sole remaining Liberal State, Tasmania and I expect the chances of that happening are close to zero with the current Premier.
I think the only way to stop this medical disaster is through the courts or with a new Liberal Govt( hopefully wihout any LINOs).
You have highlighted a reality Andrew.
When science is corrupted as in the example you cite:
"a woman was anyone who claimed to be a woman”,
there is really nowhere to go. Without respecting scientific realities medicine becomes the domain of the absurd. Gender transition may be just the beginning.
Vincent, the way we follow American culture, including medicine, who would be shocked if there were , already, our own equivalent Racheal Levines within , say, college policy working groups? I have no idea , and if adults, so what, you say, except such individuals have proved powerful proponents of medical intervention in minors, and have seemingly sought and gained unassailable positions, as the Australian Academy of Science illustrates. Just asking , to try to fully understand how we got to this point where it is anathema to raise any challenge to support for “ gender identity “ having any claim to relevance in medical treatment protocol , specifically, in relation to minors.
Yes, Guy, we recall the federal ALP conference in 2018 endorsed the policy of obligatory “ affirmation “ model of care for minors ( along with the punitive “ anti conversion “ therapy for miscreant clinicians) and such policy endorsements is binding, across all ALP state jurisdictions. Were the current Qld opposition LNP to gain government next year , a preliminary tactic, for the current opposition Health spokesperson, would be to obtain the intuitively majority opinion ( unsupportive of hormonal intervention in minors) of state registered Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists ( via a , say, voluntary plebiscite/ secret ballot) providing such powerful evidence, on which to rely, in proposing a bill to the next parliament to mandate obligatory deferment of hormonal intervention in minors. The bill might also include the redaction of the current punitive “ anti conversion “ legislation. For as long as Health remains a statutory State Government responsibility such might prevent any overriding of a Federal ALP Government? So, Queensland has an opportunity to perhaps lead a charge, State by State, in providing the legislative change? What alternate path is there, to obtain protection for future vulnerable children, other than State by State legislation, backed with the intuitive majority from relevant specialist clinicians. There would be skin and hair flying, to incrementally introduce such legislative changes-as the subset ( likely minority) of protagonists claim all experience and clinical “ knowledge “ and so to their minds easily justify derision or dismissing of others.