6 ms·

No, it’s a “do no harm to children” decision by the public healthcare service in the UK based on evidence and NHS England doesn’t stand in the election in case

No, it’s a “do no harm to children” decision by the public healthcare service in the UK based on evidence and NHS England doesn’t stand in the election in case that wasn’t obvious.

LexiMax 3y ago
Withholding medical care that has been demonstrated to result in positive mental health outcomes seems like the opposite of "do no harm to children" to me.
- arp242 3y ago
  The research and evidence is extremely limited. Basically, we don't really know what long-term physical effects are. Given that all of this is pretty invasive, it would be surprising if there are zero effects. This is not unusual; many medicines have side-effects, and we make cost/benefit estimates based on our knowledge of them. This is the "informed" part of "informed consent". None of this is controversial as such. Some people are so worried that the "anti-woke warriors" will abuse any negative outcomes that it is now near-taboo, and apparently the activists prefer to uphold the unsubstantiated myth there are no side-effects. This is harmful not just to the people taking puberty blockers, but also to the public debate in general. Those same anti-woke warriors can now claim all sorts of things and you have very little to counter it with, because we just don't know. Also doesn't exactly instil trust in the movement either.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    > The research and evidence is extremely limited. Puberty blockers have been used for decades for a variety of other uses, but it seems like its most common use is to treat precocious puberty, which has a number of undesirable psychological side-effects. What sticks out to me is that the medicine is not being withdrawn for anything other than gender dysphoria. It's a very bizarre line to draw for such a supposedly controversial medicine.
    - arp242 3y ago
      That's not too surprising since the Cass review just looks at transgender care, and not anything else. There's tons of medication that's approved for one condition but not the other. See: hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. It's about balancing benefits with downsides and risks, and those can vary from condition to condition, and from case to case. The other day I saw a story about puberty in a 2-year old, which is quite a different condition than gender dysphoria. All I know is the "harmless and completely reversible with no effects" is not backed by evidence, as people have been saying for years. I'd say that from what I know, puberty blockers are probably the right choice for a large number of kids with gender dysphoria, but probably not all. I doubt that "it's the right choice for 95% of kids, but it may or may not cause long-term effects, we don't really know" would be accepted for any other medication. If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all.
      - LexiMax 3y ago
        > That's not too surprising since the Cass review just looks at transgender care, and not anything else. Which is a bizarre choice on its face, given that children with precocious puberty tend to be on these drugs for longer than those with gender dysphoria. > If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all. I believe that transgender people and their supporters are rightfully worried that this is the harbinger to significantly restricting or altogether banning gender-affirming care across the board, even for consenting and informed adults. If I thought I would lose access to medication that allowed me to not only function, but live a happier and more fulfilling life, as is the case in many US states, I'd be a bit cross as well. Then again, I also don't feel like laying this problem at Twitter users' feet is very productive, considering how much of a trash fire the site is in its sum total no matter what conversation you're having.
        arp242 3y ago
        The Cass Review looks at transgender care throughout the UK, and even that is taking many years. Not everything can look at every aspect of everything.

No, it’s a “do no harm to children” decision by the public healthcare service in the UK based on evidence and NHS England doesn’t stand in the election in case that wasn’t obvious.

LexiMax 3y ago

Withholding medical care that has been demonstrated to result in positive mental health outcomes seems like the opposite of "do no harm to children" to me.

arp242 3y ago
The research and evidence is extremely limited. Basically, we don't really know what long-term physical effects are. Given that all of this is pretty invasive, it would be surprising if there are zero effects. This is not unusual; many medicines have side-effects, and we make cost/benefit estimates based on our knowledge of them. This is the "informed" part of "informed consent". None of this is controversial as such. Some people are so worried that the "anti-woke warriors" will abuse any negative outcomes that it is now near-taboo, and apparently the activists prefer to uphold the unsubstantiated myth there are no side-effects. This is harmful not just to the people taking puberty blockers, but also to the public debate in general. Those same anti-woke warriors can now claim all sorts of things and you have very little to counter it with, because we just don't know. Also doesn't exactly instil trust in the movement either.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > The research and evidence is extremely limited. Puberty blockers have been used for decades for a variety of other uses, but it seems like its most common use is to treat precocious puberty, which has a number of undesirable psychological side-effects. What sticks out to me is that the medicine is not being withdrawn for anything other than gender dysphoria. It's a very bizarre line to draw for such a supposedly controversial medicine.
  - arp242 3y ago
    That's not too surprising since the Cass review just looks at transgender care, and not anything else. There's tons of medication that's approved for one condition but not the other. See: hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. It's about balancing benefits with downsides and risks, and those can vary from condition to condition, and from case to case. The other day I saw a story about puberty in a 2-year old, which is quite a different condition than gender dysphoria. All I know is the "harmless and completely reversible with no effects" is not backed by evidence, as people have been saying for years. I'd say that from what I know, puberty blockers are probably the right choice for a large number of kids with gender dysphoria, but probably not all. I doubt that "it's the right choice for 95% of kids, but it may or may not cause long-term effects, we don't really know" would be accepted for any other medication. If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all.
    - LexiMax 3y ago
      > That's not too surprising since the Cass review just looks at transgender care, and not anything else. Which is a bizarre choice on its face, given that children with precocious puberty tend to be on these drugs for longer than those with gender dysphoria. > If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all. I believe that transgender people and their supporters are rightfully worried that this is the harbinger to significantly restricting or altogether banning gender-affirming care across the board, even for consenting and informed adults. If I thought I would lose access to medication that allowed me to not only function, but live a happier and more fulfilling life, as is the case in many US states, I'd be a bit cross as well. Then again, I also don't feel like laying this problem at Twitter users' feet is very productive, considering how much of a trash fire the site is in its sum total no matter what conversation you're having.
      - arp242 3y ago
        The Cass Review looks at transgender care throughout the UK, and even that is taking many years. Not everything can look at every aspect of everything.