As long as you listen to the science and stop referring to puberty blockers as necessary life saving treatment that merely pauses puberty, you can advocate for what you want. Again, just quoting the science: “We don’t have strong evidence that puberty blockers are merely a pause button, or that their benefits outweigh their downsides”
A discussion on if the benefits outweigh the downsides is no longer verboten.
There’s a reason medical practice is heavily regulated. Many established medical practices should NOT simply be left to a doctor and their patient. See eg. unannounced pelvic examinations for anesthetized women. That practice has only recently been started to be regulated in some states. If the doctor’s patient is underage, parental rights precedent has a lot to say on the matter. If you’re of the belief that parents should have no rights at all over their children’s medical decisions-- In the simple case, how will children get vaccinated before they can give consent? In the extreme case, is assisted suicide on the table? Obviously that last one is a stretch, but it proves that (to most people) it’s not always as simple as it being between doctor and patient.
They would just be a unilateral decision by the doctor.
True.
Sure, why not?
Well, you’re consistent, but I think you’ll find allowing assisted suicide for minors to be an incredibly unpopular opinion, and as such your overall argument is still not likely to be accepted at large.
You said ‘in the extreme case.’ The extreme case would be something like the teenager either living three or for years in agony or ending their life with dignity. Why should that teenager be forced to live in agony for those three years?
Cool. Which of those negates the fact that puberty blockers can prevent suicides?
The part I quoted goes over that: “We don’t have strong evidence that puberty blockers … are lifesaving care in the sense that they prevent suicides”
Again, not my words, this is what the science says.
“We don’t have strong evidence” doesn’t sound like “we should stop using this method.” Shouldn’t that be between the doctor and their patient?
As long as you listen to the science and stop referring to puberty blockers as necessary life saving treatment that merely pauses puberty, you can advocate for what you want. Again, just quoting the science: “We don’t have strong evidence that puberty blockers are merely a pause button, or that their benefits outweigh their downsides”
A discussion on if the benefits outweigh the downsides is no longer verboten.
Again, shouldn’t this be between a doctor and their patient? Why are you getting between them?
There’s a reason medical practice is heavily regulated. Many established medical practices should NOT simply be left to a doctor and their patient. See eg. unannounced pelvic examinations for anesthetized women. That practice has only recently been started to be regulated in some states. If the doctor’s patient is underage, parental rights precedent has a lot to say on the matter. If you’re of the belief that parents should have no rights at all over their children’s medical decisions-- In the simple case, how will children get vaccinated before they can give consent? In the extreme case, is assisted suicide on the table? Obviously that last one is a stretch, but it proves that (to most people) it’s not always as simple as it being between doctor and patient.
Those would not be between doctor and patient, would they? They would just be a unilateral decision by the doctor.
Do you have a better example?
Sure, why not?
True.
Well, you’re consistent, but I think you’ll find allowing assisted suicide for minors to be an incredibly unpopular opinion, and as such your overall argument is still not likely to be accepted at large.
You said ‘in the extreme case.’ The extreme case would be something like the teenager either living three or for years in agony or ending their life with dignity. Why should that teenager be forced to live in agony for those three years?