Jump to content

Doctors Protecting Children Declaration


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
1 hour ago, ventana said:

are you pushing science or a religious stance? 

There are 22 references on the statement. 12 are to peer-reviewed medical literature, and the other 10 reference package inserts, press, regulatory agencies, or professional societies. Zero are to religious texts or authorities.

To be sure, many of those taking this position are motivated by their religious views on either gender and sexuality or because their religion values beneficence and non-maleficence higher than autonomy, but this is not a religious statement per se. Rather, it is a scientific statement made primarily by groups--ACPeds, ACFM, AAPLOG, and AHM are all secular organizations--that have many religious members.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
23 hours ago, ventana said:

AAPA should not get involved till the medical evidence is clear.  

The statement asserts that the medical evidence is clear: that the long-term negative consequences of cross-sex hormone administration and sex trait modification surgery outweigh any evidence of benefit (e.g., suicide reduction) in pediatric patients. It advances arguments which are presumably refutable, and I'm sure we all agree should be refuted if false.

Almost half of the United States (23), through their legislatures, have made these procedures illegal for general usage for minor patients. That, by definition, renders them not standard of care in those areas: standard of care is a legal concept, which can be informed by medical society guidelines but is of necessity defined by law and adjudicated by courts.

And, in fact, the AAPA is already involved, by the house of delegates adopting HP-8720, "AAPA opposes restrictions and attempts to restrict the availability of and access to gender affirming healthcare." as policy of the academy in 2023.

Edited by rev ronin
added qualifier: minor patients
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

as I said

 

but will reword

 

The arguments that I have read is murky at best on rather gender affirming care should be allowed to minors.  There as just as many people saying yes as no 

 

https://glaad.org/medical-association-statements-supporting-trans-youth-healthcare-and-against-discriminatory/

 

  https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children

 

https://www.hrc.org/resources/get-the-facts-on-gender-affirming-care

 

https://www.opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gender-affirming-care-young-people-march-2022.pdf

 

 

and this is from a 20 sec google search.......

 

lets just let the experts come to a formal decision before putting the cart before the horse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, CAAdmission said:

Which experts? What do you do when half the experts disagree with the other half?

When the experts are not in agreement with a strong majority I tend to be patient.  
 

When they agree I  comfortable with it becoming policy.  think statins for secondary prevention. 
 

The other side might be something like gender affirming care.  Still lots of caring viewpoints but I don’t see medical consensus.  Then add in the religious right v  religious left.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
On 6/9/2024 at 4:58 PM, ventana said:

There as just as many people saying yes as no

I would absolutely want a better endorsement than that before encouraging irreversible interventions. I mean, you can never un-surgery anything; all you can do is do a second surgery to revise the first. Ditto with hormonal interventions--voices don't go up in register just because a natal female desists from taking testosterone.

I do agree that it's far more up in the air than it used to be, even though all sorts of institutions that have medical influence, like the AMA you cited, are still saying the science is settled even though Europe has signaled a profound reversal in approach over the past year. That is, if it's 50/50 now, it's not because the leading institutions have flipped, but despite their intransigence.

Your Google search will provide you high visibility pages, but not the ones that are actually dealing with the evidence.

Taylor, J., Hall, R., Heathcote, C., Hewitt, C. E., Langton, T., & Fraser, L. (2024). Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: A systematic review of guideline quality (part 1). Archives of Disease in Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2023-326499

Knowing you and most of our participants are busy and not everyone has university library access, I recommend this open access paper if you have time to read only a few articles from the medical literature. It traces the circular referencing of guidelines, which seem to eventually track back to WPATH and lack scientific rigor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
2 hours ago, ventana said:

seems some federal judges disagree with your viewpoint.  

Great! Shall we let lawyers write all medical protocols, or are we committed to actual evidence-based medicine? (which, I'll note, too few medical professionals actually understand and follow: I see correlation and causation confused all the time in plenty of medical contexts. If we can't get our own professions to follow EBM, how on earth can we expect lawyers to do so?)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
15 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Great! Shall we let lawyers write all medical protocols, or are we committed to actual evidence-based medicine? (which, I'll note, too few medical professionals actually understand and follow: I see correlation and causation confused all the time in plenty of medical contexts. If we can't get our own professions to follow EBM, how on earth can we expect lawyers to do so?)

I contest it is EBM at this time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More