A point that needs to be repeated as many times as possible is that patients' statements that they will commit suicide has nothing to do with whether they should be operated upon, or given drugs that aren't designed for the treatment of suicidality. We do have a range of appropriate evidence-based strategies to offer people who are deemed to be at elevated risk of suiciding, and they do not include surgeries and hormones. The motives for suicide are usually emotional, including depression and patients' conviction that their life situation is both intolerable and "hopeless." The treatments of choice include psychotherapy, psychiatric drugs, and psychosocial interventions that improve practical aspects of the patients' life situation.
Question: Is this ruling about whether these practitioners executed a bad intervention according to current "best practice" standards, or a challenge to the bad practice itself?
My understanding is that this case did not involve judgments about whether medicalized "transitions" are inherently malpractice. They were more about whether informed consent was obtained and whether the "evaluations" that should have occurred were carried out. This implies there was not a challenge to WPATH's "guidelines." Ben Ryan has been covering this case and he may be addressing these questions in his posts on the trial; I have not yet read them.
Liability insurance that covers the professional actions of health care providers generally will pay the expenses when the providers lose a case; that is the main purpose of that kind of coverage. The insurers can specify in advance what they won't pay for, such as provider behaviors like sexual relations with ongoing patients.
In the past 10-15 years, radical state governments have been passing laws that protect "gender" clinicians from liability for transitioning patients as long as the providers were complying with WPATH guidelines. The same states have also been passing laws that lower the age of consent for minors in the "gender" transition context.
I don't know yet exactly how cases in those states would play out. For example, how would a jury or judge determine if WPATH guidelines had been violated? The plaintiffs can't claim that there was not informed consent based on their age at the time of the transition, and if they also can't claim that a "standard of care" was not followed, the odds of winning a malpractice case for the patients are seriously lowered.
They're also on Substack and I have the full report because I subscribed it. The reporter, Benjamin Ryan wrote "Varian’s case is the first malpractice suit from a detransitioner to go before a jury, and I was the only reporter to attend the entire three-week trial. "
A point that needs to be repeated as many times as possible is that patients' statements that they will commit suicide has nothing to do with whether they should be operated upon, or given drugs that aren't designed for the treatment of suicidality. We do have a range of appropriate evidence-based strategies to offer people who are deemed to be at elevated risk of suiciding, and they do not include surgeries and hormones. The motives for suicide are usually emotional, including depression and patients' conviction that their life situation is both intolerable and "hopeless." The treatments of choice include psychotherapy, psychiatric drugs, and psychosocial interventions that improve practical aspects of the patients' life situation.
Question: Is this ruling about whether these practitioners executed a bad intervention according to current "best practice" standards, or a challenge to the bad practice itself?
My understanding is that this case did not involve judgments about whether medicalized "transitions" are inherently malpractice. They were more about whether informed consent was obtained and whether the "evaluations" that should have occurred were carried out. This implies there was not a challenge to WPATH's "guidelines." Ben Ryan has been covering this case and he may be addressing these questions in his posts on the trial; I have not yet read them.
Could Fox Varian ask that the records be opened and expose the rationale of the decision. Could this be done without revealing her personal details?
It would be interesting to find out if the doctor’s medical liability insurance is covering the expense and if there is an appeal?
Liability insurance that covers the professional actions of health care providers generally will pay the expenses when the providers lose a case; that is the main purpose of that kind of coverage. The insurers can specify in advance what they won't pay for, such as provider behaviors like sexual relations with ongoing patients.
In the past 10-15 years, radical state governments have been passing laws that protect "gender" clinicians from liability for transitioning patients as long as the providers were complying with WPATH guidelines. The same states have also been passing laws that lower the age of consent for minors in the "gender" transition context.
I don't know yet exactly how cases in those states would play out. For example, how would a jury or judge determine if WPATH guidelines had been violated? The plaintiffs can't claim that there was not informed consent based on their age at the time of the transition, and if they also can't claim that a "standard of care" was not followed, the odds of winning a malpractice case for the patients are seriously lowered.
I want to point out there was a fairly detailed report by The Free Press: https://www.thefp.com/p/a-legal-first-that-could-change-gender?hide_intro_popup=true
They're also on Substack and I have the full report because I subscribed it. The reporter, Benjamin Ryan wrote "Varian’s case is the first malpractice suit from a detransitioner to go before a jury, and I was the only reporter to attend the entire three-week trial. "