Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How are Sex Change Operations Medically Ethical?

Page 2 of 7 [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

07 Jul 2014, 4:42 pm

beneficii wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:

As mentioned in the Medicare decision, long-term follow-up studies show good outcomes and little regret:

Here's some homework on what the research has said via the Medicare decision:

http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/dabdec ... ab2576.pdf
If the underlining condition has not been treated how can you claim success?


But the underlying condition was treated in those cases, the condition being namely gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder. Refuse to provide safe and effective treatments and you run into several risks, such as the development of "debilitating depression," as quoted in that Medicare decision. However, simply treating the depression itself in those cases is not really sufficient, since the underlying condition has not been addressed.
So, you agree that if the condition were treated, then the patient would no longer feel the need to keep the effects of their surgery? Since the symptoms of the disorder are still present the treatment did not affect the disorder. The only thing that was treated was the comorbid case of depression.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Jul 2014, 4:46 pm

Honestly what bothers me is the genital surgery, there is an ethical problem with it and that's where it crosses the line from therapeutic to mutilation in my opinion. People should learn to love themselves and their own bodies before having some Dr. Frankenstein carve up their privates. I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your outward appearance or identifying however they want but the reality is these surgeries won't actually make you into man or a woman, you'd still be the gender you were born as just with inert genitalia. Maybe one day the technology will exist and it probably will but that day hasn't arrived yet.



Last edited by Jacoby on 07 Jul 2014, 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jul 2014, 4:47 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:

For the severe and intractable cases, we simply have no other safe and effective solution to treat the condition.
Forgive me, but this does not seem logical. The notion of cutting off a body part because you do not know how to treat a condition sounds more like witch doctory rather than sound medical science. Once a more effective and less harmful treatment is found what excuse shall be given to the unfortunate patients of an outdated and physically harmful process?


You redacted my first paragraph, and ended up quoting me out of context.

Please go back and re-read the first paragraph of that post.
There is nothing wrong with this quote, nor did it do you anything to harm your statement.


This is beginning to go round and round in circles.

Ahem, I will reiterate that the independent review board has found sex reassignment surgery to be "safe and effective and not experimental"; that is why we perform; that is why we cover it. Talk therapy or antipsychotic therapy in certain cases just doesn't measure up. Those are the cases we use sex reassignment as a treatment.

It's why we have WPATH.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jul 2014, 4:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Honestly what bothers me is the genital surgery, there is an ethical problem with it and that's where it crosses the line from therapeutic to mutilation in my opinion. People should learn to love themselves and their own bodies before having some Dr. Frankenstein carve up their privates. I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your outward appearance or identifying however but the reality is these surgeries won't actually make you into man or a woman, you'd still be the gender you were born as just with inert genitalia. Maybe one day the technology will exist and it probably will but that day hasn't arrived yet.


A trans woman walking into the surgery center for surgery is already a woman; the same is true of a trans man, being a man.

Also, many trans people who have grown quite well-accustomed to their post-surgical bodies would be aghast that you would describe it as mutilation. For them, it was an improvement!


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jul 2014, 4:52 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:

As mentioned in the Medicare decision, long-term follow-up studies show good outcomes and little regret:

Here's some homework on what the research has said via the Medicare decision:

http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/dabdec ... ab2576.pdf
If the underlining condition has not been treated how can you claim success?


But the underlying condition was treated in those cases, the condition being namely gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder. Refuse to provide safe and effective treatments and you run into several risks, such as the development of "debilitating depression," as quoted in that Medicare decision. However, simply treating the depression itself in those cases is not really sufficient, since the underlying condition has not been addressed.
So, you agree that if the condition were treated, then the patient would no longer feel the need to keep the effects of their surgery? Since the symptoms of the disorder are still present the treatment did not affect the disorder. The only thing that was treated was the comorbid case of depression.


This is like WTF? Feeling the need to keep the effects of the surgery. Do you mean that they don't run back and demand to be turned back?

Sounds to me like a sign the surgery was truly indicated for that person: The person got what they needed.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 4:54 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Honestly what bothers me is the genital surgery, there is an ethical problem with it and that's where it crosses the line from therapeutic to mutilation in my opinion.


Seems rather an arbitrary line to draw in my opinion. People have themselves carved up in all sorts of ways in the name of cosmetic therapy.

Unless you understand the crisis caused by being born with genitals that don't match your psychological identity, its not really your decision to make.

Jacoby wrote:
People should learn to love themselves and their own bodies before having some Dr. Frankenstein carve up their privates


Again, its not your place to posture to others about how they should or shouldn't love themselves.

Your condescending tone is dripping in cis-privilege.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

07 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm

thomas81 wrote:
That it is mutilation is your opinion. How do you deem it to be 'mutilation'? Its no more mutilation than cosmetic surgery or tumour removal.

GID is not an 'underlying condition' deemable no more an affliction than homosexuality or autism is.
Websters: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Did it need to be removed? No, well then it is unethical. If you discovered a doctor had removed your good kidney I would bet you would be mad. As far as I am aware Gender Dysphoria is listed as a mental disorder. Except in autism and homosexuality their is not a need to mutilate ones body ( for the most part).


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Jul 2014, 5:10 pm

beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Honestly what bothers me is the genital surgery, there is an ethical problem with it and that's where it crosses the line from therapeutic to mutilation in my opinion. People should learn to love themselves and their own bodies before having some Dr. Frankenstein carve up their privates. I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your outward appearance or identifying however but the reality is these surgeries won't actually make you into man or a woman, you'd still be the gender you were born as just with inert genitalia. Maybe one day the technology will exist and it probably will but that day hasn't arrived yet.


A trans woman walking into the surgery center for surgery is already a woman; the same is true of a trans man, being a man.

Also, many trans people who have grown quite well-accustomed to their post-surgical bodies would be aghast that you would describe it as mutilation. For them, it was an improvement!


I wish I could phrase that better because I agree with the underlying point that you are not your genitalia. My identity as a man doesn't come from the fact that I have a dick and balls, if they were gone tomorrow I wouldn't cease being a man.

It's good that some people are happy but a lot of them aren't and I think that this surgery is kind of selling salvation when there is none and giving the false sense that modern medicine can physically "cure" what ails them when it is a sickness of the mind. Whatever the doctor creates, it's not going to be the equivalent of the opposite gender and it can never be undone.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 5:11 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
That it is mutilation is your opinion. How do you deem it to be 'mutilation'? Its no more mutilation than cosmetic surgery or tumour removal.

GID is not an 'underlying condition' deemable no more an affliction than homosexuality or autism is.
Websters: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Did it need to be removed? No, well then it is unethical. If you discovered a doctor had removed your good kidney I would bet you would be mad. As far as I am aware Gender Dysphoria is listed as a mental disorder. Except in autism and homosexuality their is not a need to mutilate ones body ( for the most part).


if the alternative to leaving the limb intact was the potential suicide of the patient, then it needed to be removed and by definition neither falls into the above criteria of mutilation nor is it unethical.

It is odd how most seem not to object to euthanasia when the patient is suffering intolerable pain, but the penis is a sacred cow that must be defended at all costs.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Last edited by thomas81 on 07 Jul 2014, 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jul 2014, 5:12 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
That it is mutilation is your opinion. How do you deem it to be 'mutilation'? Its no more mutilation than cosmetic surgery or tumour removal.

GID is not an 'underlying condition' deemable no more an affliction than homosexuality or autism is.
Websters: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Did it need to be removed? No, well then it is unethical. If you discovered a doctor had removed your good kidney I would bet you would be mad. As far as I am aware Gender Dysphoria is listed as a mental disorder. Except in autism and homosexuality their is not a need to mutilate ones body ( for the most part).


When a patient needs sex reassignment, then they NEED it, so it is not mutilation. Very few post-ops would consider themselves to be mutilated by the procedures and in fact are glad they have a body they can feel at home in.

Also, they don't just chop the willy off, either.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

07 Jul 2014, 5:13 pm

beneficii wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
beneficii wrote:

For the severe and intractable cases, we simply have no other safe and effective solution to treat the condition.
Forgive me, but this does not seem logical. The notion of cutting off a body part because you do not know how to treat a condition sounds more like witch doctory rather than sound medical science. Once a more effective and less harmful treatment is found what excuse shall be given to the unfortunate patients of an outdated and physically harmful process?


You redacted my first paragraph, and ended up quoting me out of context.

Please go back and re-read the first paragraph of that post.
There is nothing wrong with this quote, nor did it do you anything to harm your statement.


This is beginning to go round and round in circles.

Ahem, I will reiterate that the independent review board has found sex reassignment surgery to be "safe and effective and not experimental"; that is why we perform; that is why we cover it. Talk therapy or antipsychotic therapy in certain cases just doesn't measure up. Those are the cases we use sex reassignment as a treatment.

It's why we have WPATH.
I thought you were angry because you believed I took you out of context. I understand now that you simply wanted me to include someones opinion other than your own.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

07 Jul 2014, 5:16 pm

beneficii wrote:

This is like WTF? Feeling the need to keep the effects of the surgery. Do you mean that they don't run back and demand to be turned back?

Sounds to me like a sign the surgery was truly indicated for that person: The person got what they needed.
No, it is quite like you said before. The underlying condition has not been treated. The only thing that has been treated is the depression.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jul 2014, 5:17 pm

????

:?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

07 Jul 2014, 5:21 pm

What philosophy makes you believe people should be denied the freedom to do what they want with their bodies ?

Cat Woman ...
Image

Snake Man
Image


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Jul 2014, 5:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Seems rather an arbitrary line to draw in my opinion. People have themselves carved up in all sorts of ways in the name of cosmetic therapy.


I disagree, I think everything before that is pretty innocuous. I think there is an ethical line for any cosmetic surgery, no doctor should allow someone to do what Jocelyn Wildenstein has done to herself for example. It's not the fact that these folk want to identify as the opposite gender that bothers me, I just think the genital surgery is mutilation.



Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

07 Jul 2014, 5:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:

if the alternative to leaving the limb intact was the potential suicide of the patient, then it needed to be removed and by definition neither falls into the above criteria of mutilation nor is it unethical.

It is odd how most seem not to object to euthanasia when the patient is suffering intolerable pain, but the penis is a sacred cow that must be defended at all costs.
But the organ is not causing the depression. Instead the underlying condition is what is generating the suicidal behavior. How much power does your "sacred cow" have over you if think it can drive you to suicide :lol:


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius