I know of some Democrats in the Kansas legislature who oppose gender ideology and vote accordingly. I am not aware of any who are publicly opposed but vote for it anyway. If they do indeed exist, I'd be interested in knowing who they are.
Hi, Pamela, I have a question: what is your source for the statement that patients who suffer complications or malpractice will have no recourse? I did not read the full text of the bill, but from the summary I see nothing that would preclude any lawsuit against a physician who is grossly incompetent or negligent, in terms of the technical aspects of care.
I recognize that some people think that any gender transition medication or surgery is by definition malpractice; I'm referring here to cases where the doctor botches the mastectomy, prescribes a medication for a patient for whom it is clearly contraindicated due to a medical condition. Essentially, I'm speaking here of cases that would violate WPATH standards, because in my opinion that is what it SHOULD mean if gender affirming care is legal within the state-it should be legal to perform so long as the current standard of care is followed. This bill apparently provides gender doctors with similar levels of protection as abortion doctors, as well as any doctor providing any type of birth control, medical or surgical. There are many such laws relating to those topics around the country, and it doesn't universally shield providers from malpractice action. Instead, it simply seeks to hold providers to the standard intended by state law. Meaning, if it is legal to perform abortions in State A, then a doctor shouldn't be able to be sued or jailed in State B for an abortion that was performed competantly in State A.
Laws like this are actually essential in a country where medical care is regulated state by state. Otherwise, a prohibition in one state would necessarily become a prohibition in all states, even if the legislators (or even a constitutional amendment voted on by the public) in all the other states expressly wished to allow it. Very few doctors will perform a procedure that is legal in one state if doing so leaves them open to a civil judgement based on another state's prohibition.
My reading of the summary indicates that that is the intention of this bill. I see nothing to indicate that a patient who suffers harm-above and beyond the provision of elective procedures that they or their parents consented to but later determined were actually not in their best interest-would not be able to sue for it. In other words, the situation in Delaware under this bill would be no different than it was before any other states began banning such procedures in the last few years. Not a great situation, but nothing new or different. And honestly, no matter what I or anyone thinks of the particular type of care in question, I do think that as long as medical care is regulated state by state, it's vital for Doctors and all providers to be able to count on not being prosecuted or sued for doing something that was entirely legal both federal and in the state in which it was done. I don't think our system can work otherwise, and as I said I think the alternate outcome would consolidate power over the whole country in any one state that decided to go against the vast majority and ban a given med or treatment.
Please let me know though if I'm missing something or misreading the summary.
Have you looked at the WPATH files? I linked to them in this article. There are zero WPATH standards. All of these procedures are experimental and most patients are not in a stable state to make decisions. They sign away liability, even regarding medical complications, regret not withstanding. That’s your answer. Yes, this bill is similar to the bill that protects doctors who botch abortions too. That bill is also a nightmare for patients who have medical complications, not just those who experience regret. They are both written vaguely so it protects the doctors doing these procedures.
I have. I'm also aware that the WPATH Files were a selected group of messages between individuals. None of what was written was officially sanctioned by WPATH, nor do we know what percentage of the commentary that we didn't see agreed with that that we did. Using the WPATH files as definitive proof of anything is akin to using the suicidal ideation studies out of the Williams Institute as proof that transition prevents suicide. I've been in the medical community for decades, and during that time have been part of online messages boards for health providers of all specialties. The content in the WPATH files was underwhelming for me because I've seen similar messages, and far worse, on boards for emergency room staff, for general medical floor nurses, for hospice providers, and so on.
Comments by individuals such as those in the WPATH files notwithstanding, the WPATH SOC have in fact been admitted in court cases internationally. So, there IS in fact a legal standard to hold Doctors to.
And, yes, people sign away liability for the anticipated outcomes of medical transition. The same way one signs away liability for ANY surgery or procedure. Including those done on minors. Including those done for entirely cosmetic reasons. Yet, there have been judgements in multiple specialties against doctors and others, even with a signed informed consent. Once again, the prevailing standard of care applies legally.
I guess you didn't really answer my main question, and perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I'm aware of your view that gender transition should be outlawed and respect that. I'm just not clear on how legislation such as this makes the situation any worse for patients when the care is legal within the state anyway, other than the absence of such a law acting as a de facto acknowledgement that one can never count on following state law to protect them if another state has different laws. I know that I see that as dangerous for the medical community. For you as a therapist, how would it affect your treatment of patients? For example, let's say you're practicing in a state without "trans conversation" bans. Presumably, you would assume that you could provide exploratory therapy within that state without fear of prosecution? How would it affect your practice if you knew that you could be prosecuted for violating another state's ban, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT PRACTICING, NOR EVEN LICENSED, IN THAT STATE? Perhaps that's not a concern for you like it would be in medicine, but that's one of my questions.
My other question is, do you have any sources for people who have been unable to sue for malpractice after a botched abortion due to a statute like this? I've not heard of any, but if that is happening I would like to know.
Every Democrat in the Delaware legislature will vote for it.
I know. Many of them don’t even agree with it, but they will anyway. 😞
How do you know they don't agree with it? They certainly won't say so on the record.
I don’t know about the ones in Delaware, but the ones in Kansas admitted it.
I know of some Democrats in the Kansas legislature who oppose gender ideology and vote accordingly. I am not aware of any who are publicly opposed but vote for it anyway. If they do indeed exist, I'd be interested in knowing who they are.
Hi, Pamela, I have a question: what is your source for the statement that patients who suffer complications or malpractice will have no recourse? I did not read the full text of the bill, but from the summary I see nothing that would preclude any lawsuit against a physician who is grossly incompetent or negligent, in terms of the technical aspects of care.
I recognize that some people think that any gender transition medication or surgery is by definition malpractice; I'm referring here to cases where the doctor botches the mastectomy, prescribes a medication for a patient for whom it is clearly contraindicated due to a medical condition. Essentially, I'm speaking here of cases that would violate WPATH standards, because in my opinion that is what it SHOULD mean if gender affirming care is legal within the state-it should be legal to perform so long as the current standard of care is followed. This bill apparently provides gender doctors with similar levels of protection as abortion doctors, as well as any doctor providing any type of birth control, medical or surgical. There are many such laws relating to those topics around the country, and it doesn't universally shield providers from malpractice action. Instead, it simply seeks to hold providers to the standard intended by state law. Meaning, if it is legal to perform abortions in State A, then a doctor shouldn't be able to be sued or jailed in State B for an abortion that was performed competantly in State A.
Laws like this are actually essential in a country where medical care is regulated state by state. Otherwise, a prohibition in one state would necessarily become a prohibition in all states, even if the legislators (or even a constitutional amendment voted on by the public) in all the other states expressly wished to allow it. Very few doctors will perform a procedure that is legal in one state if doing so leaves them open to a civil judgement based on another state's prohibition.
My reading of the summary indicates that that is the intention of this bill. I see nothing to indicate that a patient who suffers harm-above and beyond the provision of elective procedures that they or their parents consented to but later determined were actually not in their best interest-would not be able to sue for it. In other words, the situation in Delaware under this bill would be no different than it was before any other states began banning such procedures in the last few years. Not a great situation, but nothing new or different. And honestly, no matter what I or anyone thinks of the particular type of care in question, I do think that as long as medical care is regulated state by state, it's vital for Doctors and all providers to be able to count on not being prosecuted or sued for doing something that was entirely legal both federal and in the state in which it was done. I don't think our system can work otherwise, and as I said I think the alternate outcome would consolidate power over the whole country in any one state that decided to go against the vast majority and ban a given med or treatment.
Please let me know though if I'm missing something or misreading the summary.
Have you looked at the WPATH files? I linked to them in this article. There are zero WPATH standards. All of these procedures are experimental and most patients are not in a stable state to make decisions. They sign away liability, even regarding medical complications, regret not withstanding. That’s your answer. Yes, this bill is similar to the bill that protects doctors who botch abortions too. That bill is also a nightmare for patients who have medical complications, not just those who experience regret. They are both written vaguely so it protects the doctors doing these procedures.
I have. I'm also aware that the WPATH Files were a selected group of messages between individuals. None of what was written was officially sanctioned by WPATH, nor do we know what percentage of the commentary that we didn't see agreed with that that we did. Using the WPATH files as definitive proof of anything is akin to using the suicidal ideation studies out of the Williams Institute as proof that transition prevents suicide. I've been in the medical community for decades, and during that time have been part of online messages boards for health providers of all specialties. The content in the WPATH files was underwhelming for me because I've seen similar messages, and far worse, on boards for emergency room staff, for general medical floor nurses, for hospice providers, and so on.
Comments by individuals such as those in the WPATH files notwithstanding, the WPATH SOC have in fact been admitted in court cases internationally. So, there IS in fact a legal standard to hold Doctors to.
And, yes, people sign away liability for the anticipated outcomes of medical transition. The same way one signs away liability for ANY surgery or procedure. Including those done on minors. Including those done for entirely cosmetic reasons. Yet, there have been judgements in multiple specialties against doctors and others, even with a signed informed consent. Once again, the prevailing standard of care applies legally.
I guess you didn't really answer my main question, and perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I'm aware of your view that gender transition should be outlawed and respect that. I'm just not clear on how legislation such as this makes the situation any worse for patients when the care is legal within the state anyway, other than the absence of such a law acting as a de facto acknowledgement that one can never count on following state law to protect them if another state has different laws. I know that I see that as dangerous for the medical community. For you as a therapist, how would it affect your treatment of patients? For example, let's say you're practicing in a state without "trans conversation" bans. Presumably, you would assume that you could provide exploratory therapy within that state without fear of prosecution? How would it affect your practice if you knew that you could be prosecuted for violating another state's ban, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT PRACTICING, NOR EVEN LICENSED, IN THAT STATE? Perhaps that's not a concern for you like it would be in medicine, but that's one of my questions.
My other question is, do you have any sources for people who have been unable to sue for malpractice after a botched abortion due to a statute like this? I've not heard of any, but if that is happening I would like to know.
Thank you for your time.