US plastic surgeons’ group challenges leftist ‘consensus’ on ‘gender transitions’ for minors

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons argued that ‘genital surgical interventions’ have not been proven an effective solution to adolescent gender dysphoria, adding that current ‘research’ backing medical intervention is of ‘low quality/low certainty.’

One of the most effective weapons that proponents of radical gender ideology have wielded in support of their cause has been “consensus.”

When pressed to explain how blocking a young boy’s puberty or removing a teenage girl’s healthy breasts provide any medical or mental benefit, they often cite “experts” or refer to a “consensus” of medical organizations and government agencies.

But there’s a problem with that strategy.

Recent research has shown the glaring flaws in the argument that transition drugs and procedures are appropriate or helpful for minors. European countries that had once embraced “gender affirming care” for minors, including the U.K., have begun to reverse these policies.

While American medical organizations and governments have been slow to respond, recent developments indicate that may be changing.

Earlier this year, City Journal reported that the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) had not signed on to “any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.”

ASPS added that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”

More recently, the president of that organization, Dr. Steven Williams, told a local media outlet, “I don’t perform gender-affirming care in adolescents, and the reason why is because I don’t think the data supports it.”

Prominent plastic surgeon Dr. Sheila Nazarian echoed that sentiment. “I think some physicians and some medical associations have been overtaken by a vocal minority and they are politicized,” she said. “This is 100 percent an American political issue. If we look at Europe, very progressive governments have backed off of these procedures in minors because they’re just analyzing the data – as we should with every procedure. Why is it that for this procedure, in this patient population, we just have to shut up?”

In addition, whistleblowers have come forward to reveal the damage being done to children. Evidence now shows that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has exerted pressure on researchers. In fact, leaked files from WPATH show that some doctors understood many of the concerns about pushing such drugs and procedures on minors – but did so anyway.

A landmark review of the available research on the effect of these drugs and procedures by Dr. Hilary Cass “demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”

The Cass review, commissioned by the U.K. National Health Service, noted that “[t]he strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.”

In short, the “consensus” that our media, doctors, activists, and politicians rely upon is no consensus at all. It’s based not on proven science but on a commitment to ideology.

These cracks in the façade that advocates of gender ideology use as a shield provide hope to those who have long been advocating for the truth – in the courtroom and in the culture:

The truth that no amount of cross-sex hormones or permanently damaging surgery can change a person’s sex.
The truth that doctors have a duty to “do no harm,” and that includes being honest with patients about the facts regarding procedures that are mischaracterized as “gender affirming.”

It’s heartening to see prominent doctors from at least one major medical association speak the truth about the harm being done to so many children.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, we are hopeful that the new administration will follow through on promises to protect boys and girls from gender ideology.

And the issue of gender transition efforts for children has reached the U.S. Supreme Court too. On December 4, the court heard arguments in United States of America v. Skrmetti, in which the state of Tennessee is defending its law protecting children from these harmful and unnecessary procedures.

But we know that regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C., we will continue to face challenges in statehouses, government agencies, and school districts across the country.

The fight for truth isn’t over yet – but this is a big step toward achieving a lasting victory.

Reprinted with permission from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Up Next

Whistleblowers: Best Way to Bury Government Misconduct Is To Call In The Inspector General

Don't Miss

Military may be ground zero for the war on woke

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

As Trudeau’s government teeters, Pierre Poilievre pushes for immediate election call

Economy / 2 hours ago

The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)

Housing / 2 hours ago

Trudeau loses another cabinet member as Housing Minister Sean Fraser resigns

Business

‘Source Of Profound Regret’: Firm Pays Half Billion Settlement To Avoid Criminal Prosecution For Fueling Opioid Crisis

Published on December 14, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Adam Pack

A consulting giant that helped fuel the United States’ deadly opioid epidemic agreed to pay a massive settlement to avoid criminal prosecution, according to court papers filed Friday.

McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm that advised Purdue Pharma to “turbocharge” sales of Oxycontin during the height of the opioid crisis, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that will require the firm to pay a $650 million settlement over five years.

A former senior McKinsey employee also pleaded guilty to an obstruction of justice charge for destroying records detailing the consulting giant’s work for Purdue.

The McKinsey settlement is the latest in a string of lawsuits seeking accountability from corporations and consulting firms for contributing to the opioid crisis.

The epidemic, created in part from the work of Purdue and McKinsey to market OxyContin to millions of Americans, has taken more than 500,000 lives and left a trail of devastation in its wake, particularly in parts of rural America.

“McKinsey schemed with Purdue Pharma to ‘turbocharge’ OxyContin sales during a raging opioid epidemic — an epidemic that continues to decimate families and communities across the nation,” U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy for the District of Massachusetts, who sued McKinsey alongside an attorney for the Western District of Virginia over the firm’s consulting work for Purdue, wrote following the settlement. “Consulting firms like McKinsey should get the message: if the advice you give to companies in boardrooms and PowerPoint presentations aids and abets criminal activity, we will come after you and we will expose the truth.”

“We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client,” the consulting firm wrote in a statement following the settlement. “We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.”

Health

Canadians face longest waits for health care on record

Published on December 13, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bacchus Barua and Mackenzie Moir

Just when you thought Canadian health care had hit rock bottom, wait times in 2024 have hit an all-time high.

According to the latest version of our annual report published by the Fraser Institute, the median wait from referral by a family doctor to treatment (averaged across 10 provinces and 12 medical specialties including surgeries) is now 30 weeks—the longest wait in the report’s history and more than three times longer than the 9.3-week median wait in 1993.

Of course, wait times vary by province, and some provinces are worse than others. In New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the median wait is more than one year. And even in Ontario, which reported the shortest wait times in Canada this year, patients faced a 23.6-week wait, the longest in the province’s history.

In fact, compared to last year, wait times grew in every province (except Nova Scotia where patients still faced a median wait just shy of 40 weeks this year).

There’s also considerable variation in wait times depending on the type of care. For example, patients faced the longest waits for orthopedic surgeries (57.5 weeks) and neurosurgery (46.2 weeks) and shorter waits for chemotherapy (4.7 weeks), and radiological cancer treatments (4.5 weeks). In total, the study estimated that Canadian patients were waiting for more than 1.5 million procedures in 2024.

These waits for care are not benign inconveniences. Patients may experience physical pain, psychological distress and worsening physical condition while awaiting care. This year, the 15-week median wait for treatment after seeing a specialist was more than a month and a half longer than what physicians consider a reasonable wait (8.6 weeks). And this doesn’t even include the median 15-week wait to see a specialist in the first place.

Moreover, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a U.S.-based health-care research organization, among nine universal health-care systems worldwide, last year patients in Canada were the second-most likely to report waiting longer than one month for a specialist consultation, and the most likely to report waiting more than two months for surgery. In other words, although long wait times remain a staple of Canadian health care, they are not a necessary trade-off for having universal coverage.

And to be clear, wait times are only one manifestation of the strain on Canada’s health-care system. It’s now also normal to see emergency room closures, health-care worker burnout, and data suggesting millions of Canadians are without access to a regular health-care provider.

What’s the solution to Canada’s crippling health-care wait times?

There are many options for reform. But put simply, if policymakers in Canada want to reduce wait times for patients across the country, they should learn from better-performing universal health-care countries where patients receive more timely care. With wait times this year reaching an all-time high, relief can’t come soon enough.