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?
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?