I agree—If science says a young person's brain is still developing in their 20s, then such decisions should never be made whilst a teen! Common sense IMHO.
“Canadian health care faces similar issues around treating transgender teenagers as a controversial British clinic and needs to “slow down” and not move patients so readily to medical transition, says a leading expert in the field.”
@marathon0 A few remarks:
First of all, I think you misunderstand what the article means by 'slow down' - the doctor who is quoted in the article is saying that doctors need to spend more deliberation time on each patient, not that the decisions should only be made later in the patient's life.
Secondly, there is no such thing as avoiding making a decision in this case: letting puberty continue without intervention is also a decision, with pretty big consequences.
Thirdly, there are rules, including age restrictions and various other requirements, for any interventions, made by professionals based on a scientific understanding - I think you might be underestimating those professionals' competence, as well as the decision-making competence of individual doctors and patients.
@eqyo I don't think I'm misunderstanding, if anything you are—this is about experts saying this, not me. I just happen to agree with their assessment as it's common sense FFS.
When an individual's mind isn't mature, they shouldn't be making life altering decisions. Some doctors, in my experience that share your opinion, often have vested interest in the politics of gender medicine.
In any event, slowing these processes down and re-evaluating should be done until all the ramifications are thoroughly understood by all professionals concerned.
@marathon0
What the person quoted said:
"I think it just moves us to 'Let's slow down and make sense of what is going on'. All of these decisions ... concerning social, medical or surgical transitions, these are big decisions and they deserve the time, they deserve the respect that’s needed."
"He acknowledged that patients already face long wait times, but stressed that doctors and other professionals must thoroughly address ..."
What you seem to be making of it:
"These patients should be denied any and all medical interventions until their minds stop developing somewhere in their twenties"
I don't see it.
To your other points: don't people under 20 make big decisions all the time (doubly so if they have a mental or medical condition)? And isn't it those professionals' job to understand the ramifications of various treatments?
@eqyo
There's growing evidence that adolescents, teens under 16, and children on the Autism spectrum are making these decisions too. My personal opinion is that many doctors and social workers are being irresponsible in their encouraging gender change. One of many reasons why this practice is controversial.
Unfortunately I can't find the original article at the moment, to re-read. I'll have to wait until home to see if I archived it. Is it still online for you?
@marathon0
It is still online for me.
The reason I'm not so concerned is that, as I said, there are rules in place and the goal of those rules is exactly to match a person's maturity level to the seriousness and irreversibleness of the decision.
E.g. if we're talking about genital surgery, that is strictly limited to the legal age of full medical consent, which is in most countries the same age as legal adulthood.
Hormones can be accessed earlier, but there are more requirements than just age.
I don't think there are rules about autism, but it would also be misguided to treat all autistic people as less capable of making decisions.
And in the end, there is still an individual doctor who has to approve. I think those doctors generally realise how impactful their decision is. There are many factors they have to consider. Doing nothing also has consequences.
So maybe you'd call me naive, but I think most of these professionals are simply trying to do what's best for their patients. Even if not out of the goodness of their hearts, then to avoid malpractice lawsuits.
@eqyo
>So maybe you’d call me naive, but I think most of these professionals are simply trying to do what’s best for their patients. Even if not out of the goodness of their hearts, then to avoid malpractice lawsuits.
I'm thinking back to the early 80s when social workers, psychologists/psychiatrists had this idea that one could “let out” repressed memories. It turned out to be quite the disaster as many parents were imprisoned and had their reputations destroyed, and charged with child rape etc., all on the words of these experts in the medical field.
When it comes to subjective interpretation, I don't think any of the medical community has better insight than the common man. Psychiatry is still witchcraft and **far** from an exact science.
So, I don't have the faith you have, as I've seen it before.
In my opinion, sex change steroids and surgery should only be done when children reach the age of majority. In my country, that would be 18 years of age. Even then I think it's too young, but if one is able to die for their country at that age, then I suppose yours truly can't argue against it.
@marathon0
I've read about the concerns around "re-found memories" that you mention, and I understand your concerns about false diagnosis and your general attitude towards psychology. The sheer complexity of the human brain means we can't *really* know what we're doing, and I would agree that the field has unavoidable subjectivity.
In this case though, when we're talking about doctors (accidentally or on purpose) pushing a false diagnosis on patients, it does not seem likely for one reason.
Namely, that the treatment results in good outcomes for the vast majority of patients. The condition seems rather well-defined in terms of symptoms and required treatment.
Diagnosis is made based on quite straightforward criteria, and it seems to be very accurate if we take the rate of positive outcomes as an indicator.
Also to consider is that most of these patients come with a very confident self-diagnosis, and their doctors usually spend quite a lot of time exploring whether there might be an alternative explanation.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a thought-experment.
First consider a teen with a very serious medical condition, potentially fatal. There is a treatment option that comes with risks, but greatly improves the expected physical health outcome (by, among other things, reducing the chance of death by a lot). Clearly, a decision has to be made despite the fact that it concerns a teen, and usually the treatment would be taken.
Second, consider a teen with a serious mental health condition. Again, there is a treatment option with risks, but again it promises a big improvement in expected mental health outcome, again in part by greatly reducing the chance of death (I'm talking about suicide).
The question is: why would the second situation be different? Doesn't a decision also need to be made here, and shouldn't the treatment also usually be taken?
To be clear: statistical evidence shows a clear link between affirming care and a massive reduction in suicide risk.
I see this reply has gotten rather long (apologies - and also because it is 4 days later), but I think I've now said most of what I wanted to say.
