The tone of sort of mocking patients expressing regret is… not great. The argument that these are good doctors gone wrong is harder to sustain when you hear that. I am sure many doctors have dark senses of humor about the upsetting stuff they encounter but it is different when it is about upsetting stuff …they caused.
The interesting twist in the informed consent issue specifically was the part where one of the doctors is discussing how adols can't really keep track of all the side effects and such, and then notes that often neither can their parents. (I must say that this is an issue I've actually witnessed in peds generally in the different medical subspecialties like peds neurology and peds cardiac surgery: the quote where the doctor says something like "it's always concerning when a parent is asking about complications they've been over already, even after they've given consent". I've seen this all the time. It's totally understandable given the large amount of info being discussed and the psychological stuff happening at the same time.). But, anyway, I thought that the part about the parents being just as confused as the kids could really undermine arguments that informed consent works, but at the same time it also kind of would seem to undercut claims from young adults that they shouldn't have been allowed to give consent so young (ie as minors) if the docs are also saying the parents-presumably adults in middle-ish age-don't understand things any better.
What are the legal repercussions of these revelations? Is this official WPATH policy or a discussion between members? Can Canadian doctors ignore these revelations?
These were all discussions between members, although in some cases, including most of the quotes in this post, the members answering questions were part of a panel sponsored by WPATH which could mean that in the case of the live panel quotes it is possible WPATH could legally be seen as having endorsed what was said, although at the same time most of the quotes I've seen have clearly been contemporaneous answers to audience questions as opposed to pre-prepared powerpoints. However, the rest are from an online discussion board for members, so the non-panel quotes are all simply information discussions between members which to my (very much non-expert) reading means that WPATH likely has no liability. Not sure why everyone seems to be reading this as that WPATH endorsed every word, or that the discussion posts were something where one doctor asked a question and "WPATH answered." Not really. One member asked, at least one other member answered. It's a little over the top to act as though the organization is responsible for every opinion ever expressed by every one of it's members.
And in all honesty, while this stuff can look absolutely horrible to people who don't work in health care, after decades of experience working in hospitals on care teams, honestly the content of the discussions and the tone of the messages (ie the "dark humor" mentioned in another comment) is actually quite mild compared to what I hear from colleagues most every day, amd what I read on discussion boards for my profession. (I haven't read the whole WPATH Files, so I'm basing that on quotes that have been published on other Substacks, Twitter etc.). And I've worked in multiple specialties including peds, ICU, ER, psych, hospice... While this specialty has entered truly egregious territory in terms of the cost-benefit analysis of what they're doing, this struck me very much like discussions I've witnessed thousands of times. It isn't pretty for the public-who have all been patients at one point-to witness, but unfortunately it is simply the reality in every area of medicine, in every institution, that I've ever worked in.
I appreciate your informative response. In BC there is a bill C36, about to be enacted, that ensures that the government appointees will be in the majority on the Board that regulates physician practices. It is troubling that doctors will be subject to the political manipulation of politicians.
The tone of sort of mocking patients expressing regret is… not great. The argument that these are good doctors gone wrong is harder to sustain when you hear that. I am sure many doctors have dark senses of humor about the upsetting stuff they encounter but it is different when it is about upsetting stuff …they caused.
Well they paid. So who cares? It's not like doctors have a code of ethics, right?
The interesting twist in the informed consent issue specifically was the part where one of the doctors is discussing how adols can't really keep track of all the side effects and such, and then notes that often neither can their parents. (I must say that this is an issue I've actually witnessed in peds generally in the different medical subspecialties like peds neurology and peds cardiac surgery: the quote where the doctor says something like "it's always concerning when a parent is asking about complications they've been over already, even after they've given consent". I've seen this all the time. It's totally understandable given the large amount of info being discussed and the psychological stuff happening at the same time.). But, anyway, I thought that the part about the parents being just as confused as the kids could really undermine arguments that informed consent works, but at the same time it also kind of would seem to undercut claims from young adults that they shouldn't have been allowed to give consent so young (ie as minors) if the docs are also saying the parents-presumably adults in middle-ish age-don't understand things any better.
What are the legal repercussions of these revelations? Is this official WPATH policy or a discussion between members? Can Canadian doctors ignore these revelations?
These were all discussions between members, although in some cases, including most of the quotes in this post, the members answering questions were part of a panel sponsored by WPATH which could mean that in the case of the live panel quotes it is possible WPATH could legally be seen as having endorsed what was said, although at the same time most of the quotes I've seen have clearly been contemporaneous answers to audience questions as opposed to pre-prepared powerpoints. However, the rest are from an online discussion board for members, so the non-panel quotes are all simply information discussions between members which to my (very much non-expert) reading means that WPATH likely has no liability. Not sure why everyone seems to be reading this as that WPATH endorsed every word, or that the discussion posts were something where one doctor asked a question and "WPATH answered." Not really. One member asked, at least one other member answered. It's a little over the top to act as though the organization is responsible for every opinion ever expressed by every one of it's members.
And in all honesty, while this stuff can look absolutely horrible to people who don't work in health care, after decades of experience working in hospitals on care teams, honestly the content of the discussions and the tone of the messages (ie the "dark humor" mentioned in another comment) is actually quite mild compared to what I hear from colleagues most every day, amd what I read on discussion boards for my profession. (I haven't read the whole WPATH Files, so I'm basing that on quotes that have been published on other Substacks, Twitter etc.). And I've worked in multiple specialties including peds, ICU, ER, psych, hospice... While this specialty has entered truly egregious territory in terms of the cost-benefit analysis of what they're doing, this struck me very much like discussions I've witnessed thousands of times. It isn't pretty for the public-who have all been patients at one point-to witness, but unfortunately it is simply the reality in every area of medicine, in every institution, that I've ever worked in.
I appreciate your informative response. In BC there is a bill C36, about to be enacted, that ensures that the government appointees will be in the majority on the Board that regulates physician practices. It is troubling that doctors will be subject to the political manipulation of politicians.