Impossible to overstate just how momentous this moment is...and how welcome.
Myself, I think insurance companies may well decide this matter. If insurers jack up premiums on malpractice coverage to surgeons who perform these procedures, or even deny coverage altogether, lots of these providers will rethink their position.
(Having said this, I believe the "yeet the teats" surgeon in Florida does not carry malpractice insurance to prevent getting herself in a box. Without access to the deep pockets of an insurance provider, who'd bother to sue her?)
"Medical malpractice cases have to go on what info they had".
A couple of problems with the evidence they had, though. Experts having studied these phenomena, such as sexologists, and practitioners here and in other countries (such as Finland) had long noted that gender issues most frequently resolve with puberty. That data was disregarded in favor of a "children know who they are" or "who are we to say that they don't" framing, that should have given anyone pause. What was also troubling, was to disregard the fact that the population presenting with issues had radically changed, without examining why. How about basing such radical interventions on evidence that falls apart on closer examination? How about failing to notice that long term follow-up data is missing or questionable? This in combination with rejecting non-invasive therapies as "conversion therapy". This in combination with shortened individual assessments. This in combination with exaggerating the adverse outcomes of non-action to vulnerable children and parents. This in combination with ignoring or silencing those presenting differing viewpoints - or going after their careers.
Abandoning evidence based care in favor of activism is malpractice, on a systemic level.
This, for sure is a big mess. I consider it a system problem, so hard to litigate, I imagine (not being a lawyer) - and hard to target the right people. Nonetheless, I don't think guidelines are a fig-leaf that covers all. In this case the guidelines make points that in many cases should already be obvious from basic principles of doing no harm.
Sure, some practitioners in the assembly line may have a good defense. But this has been a controversial issue for a while now, so the general observation that never has such radical treatments been prescribed on the basis of such a poor evidence base, creates vulnerabilities for all levels of practitioners, I would think.
To apply any guideline it is on you to make sure it is the proper one for the individual patient. So you have to know what constitutes a proper assessment and ensure one is thoroughly done, prior to going forward. You then have to provide accurate information to the patient, and inform them of all possible benefits and downsides. You will have to inform them of alternative treatments and approaches, because there is information not included in the guidelines. You will have to tell them what is known and what is not.
Then come the very unique circumstances of this case: A conscientious practitioner should be a critical reader as to what constitutes good evidence, and should have red flags go up when inconsistencies are present, such as that gender is both known early and immutable, and changeable and subject to "journeying". You can be expected to be aware that serious ethical concerns have been raised around ability to consent, and the unprecedented practice of removing healthy tissue. You have no excuse for not knowing that both the evidence base of your practice, and its implementation is under critique, that whistleblowers have thrown up red flags all over the place, and that this is a new field of practice with a changing patient population. If you didn't negotiate all these mine fields humbly and impeccably, I think you are vulnerable.
I think this is where some individual cases are going. Improper assessment, improper consent, improper information. And of course, botched surgeries or adverse side effects.
I don't really care if it affects adults. Adults can do whatever they like as long as I don't have to pay for it. Agree with the rest.
Those other organizations have to double down to maintain face & authority, they don't have a choice, but perhaps when they start getting sued it will change. Could take a long time though. But strange things happen when people & orgs get hit in the pocketbook.
But you do have to pay for it indirectly. The rate of emergency hospital visits is unacceptably high for the sex modification surgeries. We pay for these medical expenses through taxes and higher insurance premiums, as well as higher fees doctors have to charge in order to pay their malpractice premiums.
Hard to say. You did raise some great points. I do wonder about the lawsuits being restricted to minors after 2/3/26. Physical changes after long-term steroid use can be permanent also. The women who change their mind never lose the gravely voice, & the men continue to have boobs bigger than mine.
Detransitioning men can and sometimes do have breast reductions. The effects of high doses of testosterone on girls are dramatic, irreversible and can be substantial within a few months.
Impossible to overstate just how momentous this moment is...and how welcome.
Myself, I think insurance companies may well decide this matter. If insurers jack up premiums on malpractice coverage to surgeons who perform these procedures, or even deny coverage altogether, lots of these providers will rethink their position.
(Having said this, I believe the "yeet the teats" surgeon in Florida does not carry malpractice insurance to prevent getting herself in a box. Without access to the deep pockets of an insurance provider, who'd bother to sue her?)
Remarkable. Clearly they are trying to resurrect the reputation of their branch of medicine.
Good heavens, a professional body in the US actually taking a responsible stand on this? I'm shocked and appalled.
"Medical malpractice cases have to go on what info they had".
A couple of problems with the evidence they had, though. Experts having studied these phenomena, such as sexologists, and practitioners here and in other countries (such as Finland) had long noted that gender issues most frequently resolve with puberty. That data was disregarded in favor of a "children know who they are" or "who are we to say that they don't" framing, that should have given anyone pause. What was also troubling, was to disregard the fact that the population presenting with issues had radically changed, without examining why. How about basing such radical interventions on evidence that falls apart on closer examination? How about failing to notice that long term follow-up data is missing or questionable? This in combination with rejecting non-invasive therapies as "conversion therapy". This in combination with shortened individual assessments. This in combination with exaggerating the adverse outcomes of non-action to vulnerable children and parents. This in combination with ignoring or silencing those presenting differing viewpoints - or going after their careers.
Abandoning evidence based care in favor of activism is malpractice, on a systemic level.
This, for sure is a big mess. I consider it a system problem, so hard to litigate, I imagine (not being a lawyer) - and hard to target the right people. Nonetheless, I don't think guidelines are a fig-leaf that covers all. In this case the guidelines make points that in many cases should already be obvious from basic principles of doing no harm.
Sure, some practitioners in the assembly line may have a good defense. But this has been a controversial issue for a while now, so the general observation that never has such radical treatments been prescribed on the basis of such a poor evidence base, creates vulnerabilities for all levels of practitioners, I would think.
To apply any guideline it is on you to make sure it is the proper one for the individual patient. So you have to know what constitutes a proper assessment and ensure one is thoroughly done, prior to going forward. You then have to provide accurate information to the patient, and inform them of all possible benefits and downsides. You will have to inform them of alternative treatments and approaches, because there is information not included in the guidelines. You will have to tell them what is known and what is not.
Then come the very unique circumstances of this case: A conscientious practitioner should be a critical reader as to what constitutes good evidence, and should have red flags go up when inconsistencies are present, such as that gender is both known early and immutable, and changeable and subject to "journeying". You can be expected to be aware that serious ethical concerns have been raised around ability to consent, and the unprecedented practice of removing healthy tissue. You have no excuse for not knowing that both the evidence base of your practice, and its implementation is under critique, that whistleblowers have thrown up red flags all over the place, and that this is a new field of practice with a changing patient population. If you didn't negotiate all these mine fields humbly and impeccably, I think you are vulnerable.
I think this is where some individual cases are going. Improper assessment, improper consent, improper information. And of course, botched surgeries or adverse side effects.
I don't really care if it affects adults. Adults can do whatever they like as long as I don't have to pay for it. Agree with the rest.
Those other organizations have to double down to maintain face & authority, they don't have a choice, but perhaps when they start getting sued it will change. Could take a long time though. But strange things happen when people & orgs get hit in the pocketbook.
But you do have to pay for it indirectly. The rate of emergency hospital visits is unacceptably high for the sex modification surgeries. We pay for these medical expenses through taxes and higher insurance premiums, as well as higher fees doctors have to charge in order to pay their malpractice premiums.
Yes that is true. And in California taxpayers pay for prison inmates to undergo the surgery & presumably have complications treated.
Hard to say. You did raise some great points. I do wonder about the lawsuits being restricted to minors after 2/3/26. Physical changes after long-term steroid use can be permanent also. The women who change their mind never lose the gravely voice, & the men continue to have boobs bigger than mine.
Detransitioning men can and sometimes do have breast reductions. The effects of high doses of testosterone on girls are dramatic, irreversible and can be substantial within a few months.