This Is So Crazy

 

From the Daily Wire, a story about a transgendered, male-to-female “mother” being given a drug so she can breastfeed her adopted baby.

I will admit that when my first husband and I were beginning the process of adopting a fifth (!) baby, I thought about whether — should we get a newborn — I might be able to kick the ol’ yabbies back into gear and give the kid at least a year of mother’s milk. Naturally, I imagined it magically undoing any nutritional deficiencies or substance abuse issues that he or she might have been subjected to in utero.

So, maybe that was silly too?

But this seems actually crazy. Really crazy. Because, among other, lesser questions (aesthetic, psychological, social):

[W]hile we’re pushing the ethical envelope under the banner of transgender “rights,” are researchers considering the health and wellbeing of the child in question, who is now potentially at risk of the drug’s serious and sometimes fatal side effects?

Apparently not.

“While Reisman and Goldstein’s patient took her dose [of domperidone] orally, the FDA is reportedly still worried about the possible effects of domperidone on infants, since the drug is passed through breast milk,” notes Romper.

Domperidone has been banned in the U.S. by the FDA since 2004. “The serious risks associated with domperidone include cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death. These risks are related to the blood level of domperidone, and higher levels in the blood are associated with higher risks of these events. Concurrent use of certain commonly used drugs, such as erythromycin, could raise blood levels of domperidone and further increase the risk of serious adverse cardiac outcomes,” says FDA.gov.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Joe P (View Comment):
    But “psychosexual unfitness” doesn’t have a legal definition that I know of. Let alone one that could be used as a basis for denying parental rights.

    Adoption is not a legal right. The hoops one has to go through for fitness, cleanliness, household atmosphere in order to adopt are onerous, with no “right” to attach.

    So it isn’t “denying” parental rights (as though they already existed) – it is preventing them from coming into existence to begin with – and our laws are perfectly fine with that.

    • #61
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.