Thank you Baker. Here is a picture of a cute little Kitten on a finger.
….. no…. look to the left to see the kitten…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103366/
J Med Ethics
. 2021 Jun 8;medethics-2020-106841. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106841. Online ahead of print.
LGBT testimony and the limits of trust
Maura Priest 1
Affiliations expand
PMID: 34103366 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106841
Abstract
In, 'Forever young: the ethics of ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) for non-binary adults,' Notini et al discuss the risks, harms and benefits of treating non-binary patients via identity-affirming OPS. Notini et al's article makes a strong case for OPS's permissibility, and their conclusion will not be disputed here. Instead, I directly focus on issues that their article addressed only indirectly. This article will use a hypothetical case study to show that while Notini et al's ethical conclusion might be spot on, that perhaps the method they took to get there was superfluous. If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care. Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits. Moreover, taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care.
Keywords: decision-making; minors/parental consent; philosophical ethics; rights; sexuality/gender.
----------—
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/06/08/medethics-2020-106841
Response
LGBT testimony and the limits of trust
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-993XMaura Priest
Correspondence to Dr Maura Priest, Department of Philosophy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA; mp3588@columbia.edu
Abstract
In, ‘Forever young: the ethics of ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) for non-binary adults,’ Notini et al discuss the risks, harms and benefits of treating non-binary patients via identity-affirming OPS. Notini et al’s article makes a strong case for OPS’s permissibility, and their conclusion will not be disputed here. Instead, I directly focus on issues that their article addressed only indirectly. This article will use a hypothetical case study to show that while Notini et al’s ethical conclusion might be spot on, that perhaps the method they took to get there was superfluous. If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care. Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits. Moreover, taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106841