Transgender Medicine: Europe & America Part Ways

A recent article by Leor Sapir explores the diverging paths taken by Europe and America in the realm of transgender medicine for youth. Europe is veering towards a more cautious approach, prioritizing psychotherapy and reserving hormonal interventions for extreme cases. This stands in stark contrast to the American model, which advocates for early affirmation of a patient’s gender identity, often through hormonal treatments and, in some cases, surgeries.

The crux of the disagreement lies in the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM). European health authorities, guided by EBM principles, are making decisions based on systematic reviews of the best available research. These reviews have highlighted significant gaps in the evidence supporting sex modification in minors. In contrast, American medical associations, while claiming their treatments are “medically necessary” and “life-saving,” often rely on studies that EBM experts consider flawed or of low quality.

Sapir’s article further criticizes the American approach for its lack of comprehensive mental health assessments and differential diagnosis in pediatric gender clinics. It suggests that the U.S. healthcare system’s susceptibility to profit motives, activist doctors, and political pressures may be contributing to this divergence from European practices.

We are medicalizing gender diversity in children without sufficient evidence-based backing. Sapir calls for a more cautious, evidence-based approach, akin to the one adopted by many European countries.

FULL ARTICLE in The HILL


Companion Posts

+++

A Culture of Life and Civilization of Love

Notre Dame professor, O. Carter Snead, advocates for a “culture of life and civilization of love,” which he defines as a society that values every human life, born and unborn, and supports them with love, care, and legal protection. He emphasizes that being pro-life is not merely about being “anti-abortion,” but about recognizing the equal dignity and worth of every human being. This culture of life, he argues, is not about exclusion but about expanding the moral and legal community to include everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

He says we should ask a question about “hard limits” to those who support abortion rights. For example: should there be any restrictions on abortion at all, such as gestational stage or reasons like sex-selection or preventing the birth of a child with disabilities? He is pushing for a public debate that questions the absolute freedom of choice in the matter of abortion and urges the media to ask these hard questions as well.

Snead also advocates for “new political approaches” that involve creating partnerships across political divides and rethinking the role of government in supporting mothers, children, and families. He praises the efforts of “red” states that have expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage, increased tax credits for children, and funded programs for mothers and children. However, he also encourages reaching out to “blue” states, even those that have expanded access to abortion, to work on measures that support women and families who choose to parent or make adoption plans.

This is a call to action for a more inclusive and supportive society that values all life; a society that challenges the status quo, pushes for public debate, and encourages political cooperation for the benefit of mothers, children, and families.

Let us join with Snead and support a “culture of life and civilization of love” where everyone counts, everyone is cared for, body and soul, and everyone is protected, especially the weakest and most vulnerable.

Source: “Reflections on Dobbs, One Year Later” | The Hill

+++

Choose Life & Love