Blue Ridge Style & Beyond
+++
Let me draw your attention to an article by two medical professionals.
Jennifer Lahl (MA, BSN, RN) is President and Kallie Fell (MS, BSN, RN) is the Executive Director at The Center for Bioethics and Culture.
The article, “Is There a Doctor in the House?” informs us about progressive political ideologies that they argue are infiltrating the medical profession and radically altering the doctor patient relationship. They express concern about the emphasis on social justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), racial bias, and health equity, which they believe are being prioritized over biological sex.
It is an extensive article covering several important concerns. Here are just a few.
In the realm of medical ethics, a revolution is underway. The banners of social justice are being raised, and under their shadow, the landscape of medicine is being redrawn. The architects of this new world order are the proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and their CRT & queer theory tainted blueprints are marked by a distinct departure from the traditional foundations of medical ethics.
Lahl and Fell cast a critical eye on this unfolding revolution. They warn of the dangers of erasing the lines of biological sex in favour of the nebulous concept of self-identified gender. They lament the loss of language specific to women’s health, replaced by neutral terms that blur the significance of biological sex in medical research and patient care.
Terms traditionally used in clinical settings, such as “mothers,” are being replaced with neutral ‘inoffensive’ alternatives like “birthing parents.” Similarly, the term “woman” is frequently substituted with “individuals with a cervix.”
In essence, Lahl and Fell argue that this paradigm shift is “queering” the natural world by denying biological realities and replacing them with self-identified identities, which could potentially lead to harm and confusion in medical contexts.
They draw attention to a recent paper that seeks to redefine the boundaries of medical ethics, a paper advocating for the disregard of the health and safety of the developing fetus in the name of transgender inclusion. This, they argue, is a perilous path that veers away from evidence-based medicine and towards healthcare dictated by activists.
For example, Lahl & Fell warn of the dangers of ignoring the known effects of testosterone on the developing fetus of a ‘transman’. They argue that a conservative, precautionary approach is warranted, and that the principles of medical ethics should guide the treatment of both the mother (pregnant ‘transman’) and the unborn child.
The activists who wrote the paper they critique do not share that concern.
Here’s a eye-opening quote from Lahl & Fell’s critique of those activists, whom they describe as “a group of transgender sociologists and enthusiasts, and healthcare activists, with not one medical degree among them.”
[The activists] argue that “gendered” pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that it might be okay for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy despite the known health risks to the fetus and effects on its normal development. The desire for “normal fetal outcomes,” according to the [activists], is rooted in a problematic desire “to protect their offspring from becoming anything other than ‘normal’” and “reflect historical and ongoing social practices for creating ‘ideal’ and normative bodies.”
This is, quite frankly, insane.
Yes. It. Is.
As this blog has repeatedly done, Lahl & Fell call for a return to the principles of evidence-based medicine. AND…a return to normal.
“Stop ‘queering’ the natural world,” we say.
The pursuit of social justice should not come at the expense of the health and safety of patients, particularly mother and child.
Nor, I’m compelled to say, at the expense of Truth. It won’t end well.
+++
An article titled “21 International Experts Dispute Prevailing US Gender Transition Methods” published by The Epoch Times on July 15, 2023, discusses the concerns raised by 21 clinicians and researchers from nine countries regarding the current treatment methods for gender dysphoria in the United States. These experts argue that the best available evidence does not support the use of sex-change procedures, particularly for minors. They criticize the Endocrine Society’s endorsement of hormone treatments that block puberty in minors, stating that the evidence for mental health benefits from such interventions is of low or very low certainty.
The experts’ concerns were prompted by the Endocrine Society’s criticism of an op-ed that questioned a federal court ruling which struck down an Arkansas law banning sex-change procedures for minors. The court ruling relied on the Endocrine Society’s guidelines, which are based on low-quality evidence and influenced by transgender activists.
In response to these criticisms, the Endocrine Society’s president, Dr. Stephen Hammes, defended the guidelines, stating they were developed through a rigorous process and based on extensive evidence. He argued that more than 2000 studies since 1975 show that gender-affirming care improves the well-being of transgender and gender-diverse people and reduces the risk of suicide.
However, the group of international experts disputes this claim, stating that the best available evidence does not support the assertion that sex-change procedures improve well-being. They argue that the risks of such procedures, which include sterility, lifelong dependence on medication, and regret, are significant, while the benefits are very low.
They also contradict the claim that gender transition reduces suicides, stating that there is no reliable evidence to support this, and call for medical societies to align their recommendations with the best available evidence, cautioning against exaggerating benefits and minimizing risks.
+++