President Biden thread

Crusades said:

Potential side effects that can cause irreversible infertility?  I guess if you are an adult you can decided. 

 

Unless those decisions involve termination of a pregnancy, right?  Then the state's politicians get to decide even if one is an adult and married. The contradictions are stark.  

toomuchbaloney said:

Unless those decisions involve termination of a pregnancy, right?  Then the state's politicians get to decide even if one is an adult and married. The contradictions are stark.  

The possible side effects of abortion include things like sepsis, bleeding, and death.  Working on a unit with gyn surgical patient's I've seen some issues after abortions (no death however).  

I do think the benefits vs. risks of a procedure or medication should always be decided by the medical team and patient, not politicians or religious doctrine.  This would include puberty blockers and abortion.  

People should have the right to say "not my child" or "not me" but just because there's a strong belief in "not my child/me" doesn't mean it should be "and also not your child or not you".

In my opinion.

Tweety said:

The possible side effects of abortion include things like sepsis, bleeding, and death.

Same for pregnancy. Adolescents have increased risks.

Crusades said:

Potential side effects that can cause irreversible infertility?  I guess if you are an adult you can decided. 

 

Source for claim of irreversible infertility?

nursej22 said:

Source for claim of irreversible infertility?

I'm finding a relatively new study from the Mayo Clinic.  I'm not sure if it's peer reviewed or even published, but it seems to be reported widely and applauded by anti-medical treatment for trans people like J.K. Rowling's group.  So perhaps this is what @Crusades is siting?

It certainly should be looked at and considered, and undoubtedly more research needs to be done.  

I also read a study about biological females that suggested no long-term damage to the ovaries and uterus.  

https://gript.ie/new-mayo-clinic-study-suggests-puberty-blocker-damage-may-be-permanent/

Tweety said:

I'm finding a relatively new study from the Mayo Clinic.  I'm not sure if it's peer reviewed or even published, but it seems to be reported widely and applauded by anti-medical treatment for trans people like J.K. Rowling's group.  So perhaps this is what @Crusades is siting?

It certainly should be looked at and considered, and undoubtedly more research needs to be done.  

I also read a study about biological females that suggested no long-term damage to the ovaries and uterus.  

https://gript.ie/new-mayo-clinic-study-suggests-puberty-blocker-damage-may-be-permanent/

That makes it seems like the nay sayers are shopping for reasons to oppose the care.

toomuchbaloney said:

That makes it seems like the nay sayers are shopping for reasons to oppose the care.

Yes and it's good for them to have some studies on their behalf, despite all the positive benefits as posted by J22.  They feel it's harmful to children, immoral to mess with Mother Nature and genders can not be changed, and that children are too young to make these kinds of decisions.  

What's interesting is the Republican platform on one hand says "we trust parents" talking about education,  but I guess not in this regard.

From what I've read I believe that possible fertility problems are mentioned and they are told to consider this before starting therapy.  

Tweety said:

 

From what I've read I believe that possible fertility problems are mentioned and they are told to consider this before starting therapy.  

All prescription meds side effects should be considered before starting therapy. That is standard medical practice. No need to moralists to step in and outlaw therapy because it offends their sense of decency. 

Tweety said:

Yes and it's good for them to have some studies on their behalf, despite all the positive benefits as posted by J22.  They feel it's harmful to children, immoral to mess with Mother Nature and genders can not be changed, and that children are too young to make these kinds of decisions.  

What's interesting is the Republican platform on one hand says "we trust parents" talking about education,  but I guess not in this regard.

From what I've read I believe that possible fertility problems are mentioned and they are told to consider this before starting therapy.  

But Republicans believe that those considerations should include the opinions of lawmakers and politicians over the opinions of the patients, their parents and their physicians.  Their rhetoric about rights is contradicted by their actual authoritarian actions.  

toomuchbaloney said:

But Republicans believe that those considerations should include the opinions of lawmakers and politicians over the opinions of the patients, their parents and their physicians.  Their rhetoric about rights is contradicted by their actual authoritarian actions.  

Many medical procedures and practices/drugs  are regulated by the government which include politicians. Like mandated vaccines. Certain medications. 

 Continue to use this "authoritarian" hysteria to suggest government regulation isn't something commonly practiced already. 

nursej22 said:

All prescription meds side effects should be considered before starting therapy. That is standard medical practice. No need to moralists to step in and outlaw therapy because it offends their sense of decency. 

There's a difference with a potential side effect of diarrhea and loss of fertility. Not all side effects are equal. 

Tweety said:

Yes and it's good for them to have some studies on their behalf, despite all the positive benefits as posted by J22.  They feel it's harmful to children, immoral to mess with Mother Nature and genders can not be changed, and that children are too young to make these kinds of decisions.  

What's interesting is the Republican platform on one hand says "we trust parents" talking about education,  but I guess not in this regard.

From what I've read I believe that possible fertility problems are mentioned and they are told to consider this before starting therapy.  

Parents closing what/how to educate children isn't the same as giving children a drug that could cause serious side effects such as infertility. 

Global climate change is occurring because we "messed with nature".  And it's morally unacceptable to not allow bills and restriction. Right? 

Children are not capable of making many decisions. Hence the age of majority. 

Gender is subjective and non binary. Anyone can chose their gender. Sex chromosomes and biological sex are immutable. 

Parents allowing a treatment with potential risks versus their child doing self harm doesn't seem like a decision that the government needs to insert itself in. 

I rely on experts and science to guide healthcare of me and my family, not JK Rowling.