Since the establishment of the first transgender clinic in the United States in 2007, over sixty clinics associated with children’s hospitals have opened across the nation and are seeing very young children and adolescents with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (GD). Once known as gender identity disorder, GD has been redefined by the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition ( DSM-5) not as a mental illness but as the distress experienced by individuals related to their biological sex. The widely accepted practice of gender-affirming therapy (GAT) to treat a vulnerable population despite the associated health risks, the lack of supportive scientific evidence for the pharmacological and surgical interventions, along with the unqualified claim that these interventions will decrease the rate of suicide in these individuals presents a significant bioethical dilemma. The growing trend of GD not only impacts the individuals diagnosed but also society, culture, and the integrity of the profession of medicine. This article utilizes the five-box method, an ethical decision-making framework, to address the implications of the proposed treatment. Once applied, it becomes clear that the hormonal and surgical approaches used are not scientifically or ethically justified. The patient’s autonomy and preferences should be respected, yet constrained, if there exists a considerable risk to the well-being of the individual without proven benefits. The quality of life of those receiving this treatment has not been shown to be significantly improved long term, and the mental, physical, and spiritual health of individuals with GD is not thoroughly addressed in these clinics. The important social and contextual factors, on both microcosmic and macrocosmic scales, are minimized in favor of promoting an ideology. Ultimately, Catholic moral teaching reveals that this widely recommended treatment violates the body–soul union, disregards the principle of totality and integrity, and debases the dignity of humanity. Summary: This article examines GAT, the paradigm used in treating individuals identifying as transgender, through the lens of an EDMF. Each stage of this widely proposed treatment - social affirmation, pubertal blockade, administration of cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgery - poses harms and risks that are not fully disclosed to minors and families, creating a bioethical dilemma. Dialogue utilizing science and reasoning must be encouraged to assist individuals who experience a gender identity that rejects their biological sex. This approach would also contribute to the well-being of society.
Recently, I was a physician-observer in a clinic for children and adolescents who are struggling with gender identity. Since the clinic opened several years ago, the number of patients seen annually has grown well over six hundred. The staff includes an adolescent-medicine physician, a pediatric endocrinologist, a nurse, and a social worker. I spent twenty-four hours over three clinic days observing the interactions of staff and listening to intake synopses of patients and discussions of treatment plans. My aim was to better understand the working diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the protocols used in treatment, and the ethical concerns. These objectives were not achieved in the way I expected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.