The Political Hat

Pictured: Medical Ethicists.

     Is there anything more unethical than the musings of medial ethicists? A submission to the Journal of Medical Ethics posits that a patient (and those who have gaslighted them) are beyond question and that doctors shouldn’t exercise their own professional judgment and blindly “transition” patients without question.

     What’s worse, these “ethicists” believe that all parental rights ought ought to be suspended and parents prohibited from stopping the mutilation and gaslighting of their own children.

     From the abstract:

In, ‘Forever young: the ethics of ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) for non-binary adults,’ Notini et al discuss the risks, harms and benefits of treating non-binary patients via identity-affirming OPS. Notini et al’s article makes a strong case for OPS’s permissibility, and their conclusion will not be disputed here. Instead, I directly focus on issues that their article addressed only indirectly. This article will use a hypothetical case study to show that while Notini et al’s ethical conclusion might be spot on, that perhaps the method they took to get there was superfluous. If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care. Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits. Moreover, taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care.

     Would they give such blind acceptance to those who wish to de-transition?

Continue reading →