Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breakthrough Against Malpractice of Gender Affirming Care
After years of the American medical community insisting that gender-affirming care is appropriate, in spite of the reversals in European countries on this opinion, one prestigious American medical organization is taking a stand against the treatment:
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) is now stating that there is ‘considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions’ in minors and ‘the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty,’ according to a piece this week by the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir.
In Finland, France, Norway, Sweden and the UK, gender-affirming care is no longer the standard.
So why does the U.S. persist in this assessment? Claims have been made repeatedly that high-level research has been conducted, but the facts show otherwise:
Instead, it is the result of a small number of ideologically driven doctor-association members in LGBT-focused committees, who exploit their colleagues’ trust. Physicians presenting different viewpoints are silenced or kept away from decision-making circles, ensuring the appearance of unanimity.
Clarification of “low quality” research has also been offered, to assure the medical profession that this is not an arbitrary term:
As one expert in evidence-based medicine put it, low quality ‘doesn’t just mean something esoteric about study design, it means there’s uncertainty about whether the long-term benefits outweigh the harms.’ As evidence for those harms–which include infertility, sexual dysfunction, and the agony of regret continues to mount and ethical concerns get harder to ignore, European countries are increasingly prioritizing psychotherapy and are reclassifying endocrine and surgical approaches as experimental.
In other words, physicians should be relying on psychological treatments rather than invasive or hormonal treatments.
The ASPS has declared that their members can’t simply ignore their roles as part of a treatment team, and must be expected to take the well-being of patients into account:
ASPS responded that surgeons are ‘members of the multidisciplinary care team’ and as such ‘have a responsibility to provide comprehensive patient education and maintain a robust and evidence-based informed consent process, so patients and their families can set realistic expectations in the shared decision-making process.’
And resistance to these changes in treatment dominates U.S. medicine. Double mastectomies continue to be done on young women:
An estimate of U.S. ‘gender-affirming’ double mastectomies published in 2023 in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported 3,125 cases of ‘breast or chest procedures’ in patients ages 12 to 18 between 2016 to 2020. The study did not differentiate between 18-year-olds and minors. A new analysis by the Manhattan Institute, using a more up-to-date all-payer national insurance database from 2017 to 2023, found evidence of 5,288 to 6,294 “gender-affirming” double mastectomies for girls under age 18. This includes 50 to 179 girls who were 12.5 or younger at the time of their procedure. (‘Top surgery’ on 12-year-old girls has been reported in the medical literature.)
When will medical professionals come to their senses? When will they stop pursuing child abuse and ignoring the most credible data? When will they acknowledge the lifelong damage this kind of treatment can cause? Sheila Nazarian in Beverly Hills has spoken out:
Sheila Nazarian, the Beverly Hills surgeon, told me that surgeons in her professional network who perform gender surgeries typically defer to mental-health professionals and endocrinologists to determine for them whether minors should receive procedures like double mastectomy. That approach, she believes, is misguided, and reduces surgeons to mechanics.
‘We are not highly trained technicians,’ Nazarian told me. ‘We are physicians with responsibility for the health and well-being of our patients. We can get input from other clinicians, but ultimately the responsibility for determining medical readiness lies with us. That means that we have to examine all the data and studies available to us. Furthermore, you can’t help people by ignoring the reasons they want to go under the knife. With every patient, I exercise discretion as a professional and determine whether the procedure they are seeking is in their ultimate best interest.’ The idea that surgeons should defer heavily to the prior assessments of clinicians struck Nazarian as wrong. ‘You can’t outsource your professional judgement to other clinicians. It’s your responsibility as the last in a chain of treatment to ensure you are doing what is best for the patient now and in the long term.’
For more information on how our judicial system is exacerbating the problem, read my previous post here.
Published in Science and Technology
Thank you, Susan. I remain convinced that this is a battle we will win, both because the gender issues are so profoundly ridiculous, and because the harm done is so obvious and tragic.
As for the word “mindless” in your title…
When we’re talking about normal people, people who don’t pay much attention to what’s going on — normal Americans, journalists, college students, etc. — the word “mindless” is probably appropriate in this context.
But when we’re talking about the medical community itself, and particularly of those who are performing the so-called “gender affirming care,” I don’t think it’s the right word. The people prescribing and cutting in the name of gender affirmation don’t get the easy-out of saying “I just didn’t think.” They have a positive obligation to understand the efficacy of the things they’re doing, particularly when it is so obviously — certainly post Cass Report — controversial.
I think we are really talking about flagrantly unethical medical malpractice, and I hope and expect that our famously litigious courts, of which I’m rarely a fan, will eventually put an end to it.
I agree! Especially on the title. I’ve edited it accordingly. Thanks, Hank.
The link I provided at the end of the OP describes a case where the idiot judge clearly had no legitimate data to rule. He should have been embarrassed. My hope is that the judges, if they get a chance to rule, will do their homework. Please.
There are parents who have been made to believe that failure to affirm risks certain suicide. In fact, studies show that a juvenile that receives even initial treatment has triple the suicide likelihood of someone that doesn’t, and something like half of the life expectancy. Of course, faced with rising,unprecedented, suicide numbers, the usual suspects prescribe broader access and better insurance policy support for their victims.
It will end when some physicians (and maybe a hospital or two) get wrecked. Not some little that-will-buff-out fender bender, either.
I just want some state to remove statute of limitations for lawsuit against gender-bender mutilation surgery. I want all these quacks to know that eventually some kid they butchered is going to bankrupt them.
Now I like that idea, Don G. It’s one catastrophe that can never be mended.
I think this is our best hope. As the lawsuits start coming in, insurance companies will raise the rates for this type of surgery to the point that doctors will refuse to do it.
And/or hospitals won’t allow their facilities to be used. Which may come first.
One thing I have read is that the American Society of Plastic Surgeons came around because a number of disappointed patients sued their members.
Sued their members over their members?
One thing I found interesting about the Russian language is that the word for member (chlen) has the same double meaning as in English. It can refer to a party member as well as a body part, and in jokes sometimes did the same double duty as the word does in English. I haven’t studied whether the same holds true of all Indo-European languages.
I think that’s true, John. Works for me!
“IF genitals have no relationship to gender. How does cutting them off affirm gender?” asking for a friend.
Good for the patients. Sue them hard. No competent surgeon should have anything to do with these abominations.