Good post, and I agree. I'm reading endocrinologists and researchers who say there's real evidence now that once embarking on this path, there's no going back. That using the term "puberty pause" is misleading.
That's an excellent question - and it's a very good parallel. I just looked it up and, in fact, in 2015 there were lump sum payments to each survivor of $125k plus annual payments of up to $100k for life. It did take a very long time, but it also ended up being an enormous amount of liability.
My mother actually had a prescription for thalidomide when she was pregnant with me but was (thankfully!) too scared to take the drug.
It is unbelievable that the Canadian Pediatric Society has bought into this nonsense hook, line and sinker. Hopefully the Cass Report will wake them up. CPS actually wrote quite a lengthy letter to Premier Danielle Smith after she announced new restrictions on 'gender affirming care' for minors, expressing concerns for these new restrictions. We have a Prime Minister who thinks gender affirming care for minors is just dandy and also thinks parents who don't want gender ideology taught to their kids in schools are hateful, and now has CSIS monitoring them. He also thinks that its alright for schools not to tell parents that their kids our identifying as transgender at school. So we have a long way to go in Canada. As lawsuits go, frankly it should come out of the pockets of the doctors who practice this type of 'medicine'. In the US and American Pediatric Society has been sued, because some of its members prescribed hormones and puberty blockers to minors who it didn't go so well for. So I think the same should happen here, taxpayers shouldn't be made to pay for this nonsense. It is bad enough that we have to foot the bill for the sex reassignment surgeries. In Ontario a 33 year old man who identifies as non-binary, has won his case to have surgery in the US to have a pseudo vagina constructed, while keeping his penis. OHIP had refused to cover the $70,000 expense, but an Ontario court felt differently, so this person is on his way to Texas to get a new pseudo vagina on the taxpayer's dime.
Firstly, the proponents of this type of "care" want to be able to offer it to pretty young (an undefined term here but, as near as I can tell, actually pretty correct) folks. The basis for that "care" is that the young folks "need" that care and are "clearly" sufficiently responsible and knowledgeable to make that decision. Interesting (to me), that we have some very clearly legal drugs, called tobacco, cannabis and alcohol - remember, I said that they were clearly legal - for which those same young folks are denied access because they are too young to make an "informed decision."
Secondly, I live in Calgary and I very much expect that I know the "family physician" who was quoted in that interview - he is my family doctor - and, yes, he talks like that. As it happens, I just let him talk and agree politely and forget to disagree when I otherwise would do so. Not a surplus of doctors, don't you know?
All in all, Sir, a good piece on a very difficult (for we lay people who have opinions but lack the MD behind our name) area that is generating a lot of hate against those who in government - to me - are legitimately trying to do their best for those same young folks. And now, I expect that hate to be directed at me! Oh, and my doctor? Perhaps he might remind me of my dereliction from "good sense" when I see him next. Oh well!
That's wild that he's your doctor. My own doctor - besides an alarming attachment to masks - is smart, reliable, and a great listener. But he's also more or less my age, so he'll probably be retiring in the next few years.
When my father was in his 60s he made sure to find a doctor who was a lot younger than him. But I don't think I'd trust anyone who'd set foot in a university in the last 20 years.
There is no guarantee that he is my doctor - I didn't hear the interview - but he is often quoted on the subject; he has (ahem) opinions on the subject and is VERY interested in sharing, yada, yada, yada.
He is about 10 years younger than I (from appearance, anyway) and I have another doc lined up who is younger yet. As for your last sentence, I do agree but, then, I am a grumpy old guy so my thoughts are pretty much irrelevant.
Again, thank you for your sterling work in this blog.
Ah! Not my doc. My doc, as I mentioned is OFTEN interviewed and quoted. As for JD, well, I am unaware of him. Room yet for my doc to make an appearance!
Good post, and I agree. I'm reading endocrinologists and researchers who say there's real evidence now that once embarking on this path, there's no going back. That using the term "puberty pause" is misleading.
Were the victims of thalidomide ever fully compensated or was it a case of the government dragging out compensation time?
That's an excellent question - and it's a very good parallel. I just looked it up and, in fact, in 2015 there were lump sum payments to each survivor of $125k plus annual payments of up to $100k for life. It did take a very long time, but it also ended up being an enormous amount of liability.
My mother actually had a prescription for thalidomide when she was pregnant with me but was (thankfully!) too scared to take the drug.
It is unbelievable that the Canadian Pediatric Society has bought into this nonsense hook, line and sinker. Hopefully the Cass Report will wake them up. CPS actually wrote quite a lengthy letter to Premier Danielle Smith after she announced new restrictions on 'gender affirming care' for minors, expressing concerns for these new restrictions. We have a Prime Minister who thinks gender affirming care for minors is just dandy and also thinks parents who don't want gender ideology taught to their kids in schools are hateful, and now has CSIS monitoring them. He also thinks that its alright for schools not to tell parents that their kids our identifying as transgender at school. So we have a long way to go in Canada. As lawsuits go, frankly it should come out of the pockets of the doctors who practice this type of 'medicine'. In the US and American Pediatric Society has been sued, because some of its members prescribed hormones and puberty blockers to minors who it didn't go so well for. So I think the same should happen here, taxpayers shouldn't be made to pay for this nonsense. It is bad enough that we have to foot the bill for the sex reassignment surgeries. In Ontario a 33 year old man who identifies as non-binary, has won his case to have surgery in the US to have a pseudo vagina constructed, while keeping his penis. OHIP had refused to cover the $70,000 expense, but an Ontario court felt differently, so this person is on his way to Texas to get a new pseudo vagina on the taxpayer's dime.
Civil courts and insurance companies may be our only hope.
Sir, I would like to make two points.
Firstly, the proponents of this type of "care" want to be able to offer it to pretty young (an undefined term here but, as near as I can tell, actually pretty correct) folks. The basis for that "care" is that the young folks "need" that care and are "clearly" sufficiently responsible and knowledgeable to make that decision. Interesting (to me), that we have some very clearly legal drugs, called tobacco, cannabis and alcohol - remember, I said that they were clearly legal - for which those same young folks are denied access because they are too young to make an "informed decision."
Secondly, I live in Calgary and I very much expect that I know the "family physician" who was quoted in that interview - he is my family doctor - and, yes, he talks like that. As it happens, I just let him talk and agree politely and forget to disagree when I otherwise would do so. Not a surplus of doctors, don't you know?
All in all, Sir, a good piece on a very difficult (for we lay people who have opinions but lack the MD behind our name) area that is generating a lot of hate against those who in government - to me - are legitimately trying to do their best for those same young folks. And now, I expect that hate to be directed at me! Oh, and my doctor? Perhaps he might remind me of my dereliction from "good sense" when I see him next. Oh well!
That's wild that he's your doctor. My own doctor - besides an alarming attachment to masks - is smart, reliable, and a great listener. But he's also more or less my age, so he'll probably be retiring in the next few years.
When my father was in his 60s he made sure to find a doctor who was a lot younger than him. But I don't think I'd trust anyone who'd set foot in a university in the last 20 years.
There is no guarantee that he is my doctor - I didn't hear the interview - but he is often quoted on the subject; he has (ahem) opinions on the subject and is VERY interested in sharing, yada, yada, yada.
He is about 10 years younger than I (from appearance, anyway) and I have another doc lined up who is younger yet. As for your last sentence, I do agree but, then, I am a grumpy old guy so my thoughts are pretty much irrelevant.
Again, thank you for your sterling work in this blog.
There's a link in the article to the CBC page (I read it so you don't have to). The doctor is quoted by name: Jake Donaldson
Ah! Not my doc. My doc, as I mentioned is OFTEN interviewed and quoted. As for JD, well, I am unaware of him. Room yet for my doc to make an appearance!