How are Sex Change Operations Medically Ethical?

Post Reply New Topic

Now, I know a percentage of transgender individuals tend to be suicidal, but I cannot understand how a doctor can ethically preform such an operation when their is nothing physically wrong with the patient? Note, I am not bashing transgender. I Just want to know how a doctor can legally and ethically preform such an operation? I mean, if I were suicidal because I wanted to look like Felix the cat a doctor could not ethically preform such an operation just because I issue threats if my demands were not met.

The point is that gender dysphoria, depending on the patient, can become so unbearable that the patient is at increased risk of suicide without the sexual reassignment. It therefore becomes in the better, longer term interests of the patient to have the operation than not to have it.
The only way you can understand is to imagine if tomorrow morning, you woke up in the body of the opposite gender but had all of your original pretenses about your gender role intact. How would you feel?

Your analogy surrounding a operation to become a cat does not stick and is disingenuous at best, because there is no recognised condition which causes this (GID is a medical condition, making 'threats' does not come into it) nor is there a sizable number of people to speak of that desire such an operation, at least not compared to those suffering severe gender identity dysphoria.

Last edited by thomas81 on 07 Jul 2014, 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Simply put, in severe, intractable adolescent/adult cases of gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder, sex reassignment is the only safe and effective solution to the condition, as the point was made in the recent Medicare decision.

For the severe and intractable cases, we simply have no other safe and effective solution to treat the condition.

If someone came to their doctor, suffering from depression, and required anti-depressants without which they would otherwise be suicidal, no-one would accuse the patient of 'threatening' their doctor. Why in the case of transpeople, are they are suddenly the 'hysterical villain?'


No responsible, professional doctor worth their salt would belittle depression or autism for that case, and nor should any responsible doctor belittle GID.

Feel being the key word. A feeling is a reaction that is not always justified by reason nor is it sound in the long term. What if the person "feels" differently ten years from now only to find out that they are now completely sterile? I have sympathy for people who are suicidal. Hell, I have been their ( although not for this reason) , but being suicidal is not a rational thought process, nor should the decisions made under such conditions be held to the highest degree of reliability.

Perhaps you are missing the rather large separation between depression and assisted mutilation.

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

That is why people who get SRS are typically put through rigourous and extensive psychological analysis to ensure they are absolutely certain about their condition.

Surgeons don't perform SRS light heartedly. It is only recieved by people who are so burdened with their GID that it takes precedence over all other factors, including any reproductive ambitions.

Anyway, your point about being sterile or not being sterile could be rendered moot by other factors. What if you married someone who turned out to be sterile later on, or you already knew was sterile? A circumstance created by your own choice.

^ This. You don't just walk in and get it one day on a whim.

In fact, in America, many are unable to get it at all because of the cost and lack of insurance coverage for it, and it messes us up. Hopefully, the insurance industry follows Medicare in its recent coverage decision.

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?

If the underlining condition has not been treated how can you claim success?

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.

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.

If the underlying condition which makes a person want to mutilate their body has not been treated how can you ethically say that the person is certain that they want the change when the condition is affecting their decision? Your assumption about the issue of being rendered sterile is not a logical thought process, nor does it coincide with any legal maxim.

There is nothing wrong with this quote, nor did it do you anything to harm your statement.

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.

Last edited by thomas81 on 07 Jul 2014, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.