Australian medical practitioners are being called upon to sign an open letter to reassess the effectiveness of so-called gender affirming care. It is becoming clear around the world that the data and research do not support the experimental pathways on children that result in irreversible harm. The letter begins with the following, “As clinicians, we call on our professional bodies and regulatory authorities to urgently acknowledge and respond to recent international and local developments in the field of youth gender medicine. These developments indicate that what is known as the “gender affirmative treatment” model (GAT), currently used in Australian public youth gender clinics, risk the health and well-being of vulnerable children and adolescents.” The organisers refer to the Cass review and the concerns raised about potential harm. Invasive treatments such as puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery hold known and potential risks of harm. These include sterility, urogenital and sexual dysfunction, effects on bone, brain and cardiovascular health.
Due to the above, countries including Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Brazil and the UK have all recommended their use be restricted in minors. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently relied on the findings of the Cass Review1 and clinical expert evidence in a recent case. In his judgment, Justice Strum: a) Endorsed the Cass review. b) Regarded the risk of harm from puberty blockers as “unacceptable.” c) Rejected the idea that gender identity is innate and immutable. d) Criticised the gender clinic’s policy of unreserved affirmation. e) Found that a senior gender-affirming clinician had failed in her duty of impartiality as an expert witness. f) Found the gender clinic lacking in its approach to assessment, diagnosis, and therapeutic options. The letter concludes with a call for Australian standards “to cease the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for children and adolescents due to the lack of evidence of benefit and known risks of serious harm.”
Source: Binary
Print This Post
Comments are closed