Minor children are being given body-harming drugs they CANNOT consent to, for a condition that is mental, not physical. Government intervention is warranted here because minors are involved.
Minor children are being given body-harming drugs they CANNOT consent to, for a condition that is mental, not physical. Government intervention is warranted here because minors are involved.
Except that minor children are given drugs for mental conditions every day, by the million. Some of which cause things like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cognitive problems, high propensity for addiction, and sexual dysfunction. And I'm talking only about antidepressants, antipsychotics, and ADHD stimulant meds here, not trans meds. And many more millions of minors get meds every day that they cannot consent to. In fact, by definition, minors under the age of 13 cannot consent to any medical treatment (at least in the vast majority of states) and those 13-17 can only consent to reproductive and limited psychiatric care and only in certain states. Then there are adults who are temporarily incapacitated (in a decision-making sense) or permanently incompetent. They, too, receive meds, have surgeries and so on that they by definition cannot consent to.
We actually already have a pretty solid solution for that issue: legal guardians. Parents, power of attorney or health care proxy, conservators, rarely the courts, etc. Their job, in whole or in part depending on the specific role, is to consider the pros and cons and make a decision in the best interest of the child. So this actually isn't a case at all where the government needs to be involved because minors are involved and there are severe side effects and it is a mental condition, because that is not unique to gender dysphoria and none of those are new problems in medicine, including pediatrics. What you are really arguing is that, in the case of gender dysphoria and only gender dysphoria, parents-ALL parents, not just a few-cannot be trusted to decide things in the best interest of their own children, and that the President, whomever it may be at any given time, is better suited to making a blanket decision that will be better for all the children of America than decisions made by their own parents. But only on this particular issue. For everything else, these parents who apparently can't be trusted to care about their kids, listen to Doctors, seek second opinions, or research the child's condition when it's gender dysphoria can totally make every other decision, medical or otherwise, in the best interest of their children. In fact it's a well-established constitutional right for parents to direct the medical care, and all care, of their children unless there is a specific, imminent threat to life or limb OR specific laws about abuse or neglect have been broken. Parents are even allowed to refuse treatment for cancer in favor of herbal compresses and prayer to their favorite tree in their backyard, and it can be very difficult to get an order for the state to take medical custody until there is proof that the child's condition is declining and there is more than a theoretical risk to health.
So I guess I'm curious: what, in your mind, distinguishes this issue with something like that, or even with a parent who decides (as many do every day) to give their 8yo an atypical antipsychotic for presumed childhood bipolar disorder manifesting in various behavioral issues? (See the list of side effects in the beginning of my post; all except the risk of addiction apply to these meds and many are permanent even if the med is stopped.) And second, do you REALLY want to give the President the power to supersede parental judgement for their children so easily based on the child's diagnosis? Because puberty blockers are both approved and effective for other conditions like precocious puberty or certain cancers, so this is essentially deciding parents can consent to the same drug if the child has one condition but not if they have another. You really think that's a good idea? You really don't think that will be abused, and probably pretty soon?
Not to mention, given the long history of Supreme Court deference to the rights of parents, I personally think it's highly unlikely that a blanket removal of parental rights to give consent to an approved drug would stand. But honestly, that's really not the main issue here. It's just a major change in course of medical regulation as well as parents' rights, and it's a pretty frightening executive overreach.
Minor children are being given body-harming drugs they CANNOT consent to, for a condition that is mental, not physical. Government intervention is warranted here because minors are involved.
Except that minor children are given drugs for mental conditions every day, by the million. Some of which cause things like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cognitive problems, high propensity for addiction, and sexual dysfunction. And I'm talking only about antidepressants, antipsychotics, and ADHD stimulant meds here, not trans meds. And many more millions of minors get meds every day that they cannot consent to. In fact, by definition, minors under the age of 13 cannot consent to any medical treatment (at least in the vast majority of states) and those 13-17 can only consent to reproductive and limited psychiatric care and only in certain states. Then there are adults who are temporarily incapacitated (in a decision-making sense) or permanently incompetent. They, too, receive meds, have surgeries and so on that they by definition cannot consent to.
We actually already have a pretty solid solution for that issue: legal guardians. Parents, power of attorney or health care proxy, conservators, rarely the courts, etc. Their job, in whole or in part depending on the specific role, is to consider the pros and cons and make a decision in the best interest of the child. So this actually isn't a case at all where the government needs to be involved because minors are involved and there are severe side effects and it is a mental condition, because that is not unique to gender dysphoria and none of those are new problems in medicine, including pediatrics. What you are really arguing is that, in the case of gender dysphoria and only gender dysphoria, parents-ALL parents, not just a few-cannot be trusted to decide things in the best interest of their own children, and that the President, whomever it may be at any given time, is better suited to making a blanket decision that will be better for all the children of America than decisions made by their own parents. But only on this particular issue. For everything else, these parents who apparently can't be trusted to care about their kids, listen to Doctors, seek second opinions, or research the child's condition when it's gender dysphoria can totally make every other decision, medical or otherwise, in the best interest of their children. In fact it's a well-established constitutional right for parents to direct the medical care, and all care, of their children unless there is a specific, imminent threat to life or limb OR specific laws about abuse or neglect have been broken. Parents are even allowed to refuse treatment for cancer in favor of herbal compresses and prayer to their favorite tree in their backyard, and it can be very difficult to get an order for the state to take medical custody until there is proof that the child's condition is declining and there is more than a theoretical risk to health.
So I guess I'm curious: what, in your mind, distinguishes this issue with something like that, or even with a parent who decides (as many do every day) to give their 8yo an atypical antipsychotic for presumed childhood bipolar disorder manifesting in various behavioral issues? (See the list of side effects in the beginning of my post; all except the risk of addiction apply to these meds and many are permanent even if the med is stopped.) And second, do you REALLY want to give the President the power to supersede parental judgement for their children so easily based on the child's diagnosis? Because puberty blockers are both approved and effective for other conditions like precocious puberty or certain cancers, so this is essentially deciding parents can consent to the same drug if the child has one condition but not if they have another. You really think that's a good idea? You really don't think that will be abused, and probably pretty soon?
Not to mention, given the long history of Supreme Court deference to the rights of parents, I personally think it's highly unlikely that a blanket removal of parental rights to give consent to an approved drug would stand. But honestly, that's really not the main issue here. It's just a major change in course of medical regulation as well as parents' rights, and it's a pretty frightening executive overreach.
We have a