Less government control is good, but medical ethics should come in to play. If I have a son who identifies as a pirate, should I be able to have a doctor amputate one of his hands and one of his legs, and removed one of his eyes? To me, the answer is clearly no. Should the government make a law banning these pirate transitioning procedures? No. Should doctors do these procedures? No. The “do-no-harm” oath should apply here and, IMO, medical ethics should dictate that these sorts of procedures should not be done until the person is old enough to give consent.
IMO, medical ethics should dictate that these sorts of procedures should not be done until the person is old enough to give consent.
ARGGGGGGG
Too many seem to be labouring under the naive misapprehension that medical ethics is still what the kids would call “a thing.”
It’s not. The wolves have entered the pen, and it’s time to stop pretending their wool overcoats will cause them to adopt a vegan diet...
Less government control is good, but medical ethics should come in to play. If I have a son who identifies as a pirate, should I be able to have a doctor amputate one of his hands and one of his legs, and removed one of his eyes? To me, the answer is clearly no. Should the government make a law banning these pirate transitioning procedures? No. Should doctors do these procedures? No. The “do-no-harm” oath should apply here and, IMO, medical ethics should dictate that these sorts of procedures should not be done until the person is old enough to give consent.
Really good response, thanks.
I think what is now called medical ethics, taught to today’s med students, is a far cry from what most of us would call ethics.