President Biden thread

nursej22 said:

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. 

Helping children who may self harm with a medication that may harm them seems reasonable?  

Perhaps phycological counseling would be best. No adverse side effects there and is mostly likely to be beneficial.  

Oh and my sin throws tantrums and wacks his head off the wall self harming himself. . It should be up to me and my Dr's  decision to sedate him with  IM   haladol.. 

Crusades said:

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. 

"Many" procedures and practices, eh?  You should be able to give me some examples of states regulating when and if an individual can obtain a recommended procedure (outside of a public health emergency). Outside of meds associated with abortion, are you aware of other drugs that politicians want to ban at their state level?  

There's a difference between government regulation and authoritarianism. The SCOTUS recently decided that it should be politicians and not experts or scientists who make the specific regulatory decisions about CO2 emissions or water pollution or medication safety or food safety, etc.  That's a step toward authoritarianism.  

Very little of what is practiced or proposed by Trump Republicans is common or normal. 

Crusades said:

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

 

Derp. 

In what universe would a group of nurses with decades of experience need to have this explained to them? Try making a cogent argument to support your stance rather than playing Captain Obvious.  

Crusades said:

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. 

 

No kidding... education is not the same as medical treatment but government intrusion is government intrusion.  It almost sounds like you don't know that parents decide, with medical professionals, to give their kids dangerous pharmaceutical agents every day.   It sounds like you want the government to intrude into some of those decisions regardless of what the experts are recommending as treatment plans.  You should explain if that's not true because that is the impression that you give.   Are you simply elevating a concern about infertility over other considerations?  

Another captain obvious moment with the age of majority comment.  

Is the end of your comment the beginnings of a strawman argument?  

toomuchbaloney said:

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

Yep.  I get all my medical news from this website RIPT.  I bet they have an abundance of endocrinologists to interpret a study like this one from Mayo that has an n approaching zero.

toomuchbaloney said:

No kidding... education is not the same as medical treatment but government intrusion is government intrusion.  It almost sounds like you don't know that parents decide, with medical professionals, to give their kids dangerous pharmaceutical agents every day.   It sounds like you want the government to intrude into some of those decisions regardless of what the experts are recommending as treatment plans.  You should explain if that's not true because that is the impression that you give.   Are you simply elevating a concern about infertility over other considerations?  

Another captain obvious moment with the age of majority comment.  

Is the end of your comment the beginnings of a strawman argument?  

Its almost sounds like you don't know that parents decide, with medical professionals, to give their kids dangerous pharmaceutical agents every day.   When the.child has a disease defect or deformity. 

Would you be so welcoming of non government regulation for conversion therapy? Are the laws against that "government intrusion "? 

Tweety and I both cited sources that these medication may cause irreversible side effects. Not all medical professionals agree with this treatment plan. As many topics in medical history. 

Yeah. The age of majority is tricky to get arround. 

toomuchbaloney said:

"Many" procedures and practices, eh?  You should be able to give me some examples of states regulating when and if an individual can obtain a recommended procedure (outside of a public health emergency). Outside of meds associated with abortion, are you aware of other drugs that politicians want to ban at their state level?  

There's a difference between government regulation and authoritarianism. The SCOTUS recently decided that it should be politicians and not experts or scientists who make the specific regulatory decisions about CO2 emissions or water pollution or medication safety or food safety, etc.  That's a step toward authoritarianism.  

Very little of what is practiced or proposed by Trump Republicans is common or normal. 

Politicians make the laws, scientist provide the information to the SCOTUS to decided if a law will be made. Again, not all scientist agree. This has been happening since I was born. Ypu seem to have the problem with anything outside of your own beliefes so of course they are not "normal". 

Do you propose we go forward and terminate the scientific method for challenging theories , questioning medical treatments and procedures? 

Pick the scientist or medical professional that we like and shut down any dissent because we don't agree with something? That's authoritarianism.  

toomuchbaloney said:

Derp. 

In what universe would a group of nurses with decades of experience need to have this explained to them? Try making a cogent argument to support your stance rather than playing Captain Obvious.  

Perhaps articulate what you are trying to say so that one doesn't question your knowledge? 

Crusades said:

Perhaps articulate what you are trying to say so that one doesn't question your knowledge? 

You go first.  

Crusades said:

Its almost sounds like you don't know that parents decide, with medical professionals, to give their kids dangerous pharmaceutical agents every day.   When the.child has a disease defect or deformity. 

Would you be so welcoming of non government regulation for conversion therapy? Are the laws against that "government intrusion "? 

Tweety and I both cited sources that these medication may cause irreversible side effects. Not all medical professionals agree with this treatment plan. As many topics in medical history. 

Yeah. The age of majority is tricky to get arround. 

Well, since I ran a regional PICU for 10+ years, your assessment of what I sound like couldn't be more wrong.  

"Non government conversion therapy"? Nongovernmental, as you say, implies that the government is NOT involved in the unproven treatment of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is an example of crazy people subjecting LGBTQ youth to psychological mistreatment.  How odd that you would bring that up.  

Good for you for citing sources about side effects. Parents need that information when they are making decisions for their children who are not at the age of majority and cannot seek out care or enter into a contract to pay for care independently.  

Crusades said:

Helping children who may self harm with a medication that may harm them seems reasonable?  

Perhaps phycological counseling would be best. No adverse side effects there and is mostly likely to be beneficial.  

Oh and my sin throws tantrums and wacks his head off the wall self harming himself. . It should be up to me and my Dr's  decision to sedate him with  IM   haladol.. 

Hahaha. Trying to gas light us that the opposition to specific treatment and care for transgendered youth is an attempt to prevent self harm is just laughably dishonest.  I bet you don't even believe that.

It sounds stupid for you to suggest that maybe those youth need counseling instead of other treatments or steps.  Why does it sound stupid?  It sounds stupid because counseling or therapy or mental health interventions are already an enormous piece of the POC for those patients.  

So you want the federal or state government to prevent your son from self harming and dictate which actions or steps or medications you may use to mitigate the behavior? Once again, the deductive reasoning behind your last point seems troubled and contradictory to your overall point.  

Crusades said:

Politicians make the laws, scientist provide the information to the SCOTUS to decided if a law will be made. Again, not all scientist agree. This has been happening since I was born. Ypu seem to have the problem with anything outside of your own beliefes so of course they are not "normal". 

Do you propose we go forward and terminate the scientific method for challenging theories , questioning medical treatments and procedures? 

Pick the scientist or medical professional that we like and shut down any dissent because we don't agree with something? That's authoritarianism.  

You are confused about how the EPA (for example) has used scientists to craft the regulations intended to keep water or air pollution in check and how this will change.  You should look that up.  

Your question about me wanting to terminate the scientific method is stupid, nonsensical even.  Maybe if you spent more effort on communicating your thoughts clearly rather than trying to be snarky...

Your last paragraph is more projection from the right wing.  The group of people that cherry pick scientists based upon their feelings about climate change or medical treatment for LGBTQ or COVID is going to try to project that cherry picking onto others.  I'm wondering if you just think that we are too naive to recognize that baloney.