In New York, a jury has now handed down what it viewed as the first successful lawsuit against doctors accused of malpractice over a gender transitioning surgery. The jury awarded $2 million to Fox Varian, 22, over the double mastectomy performed on her while she was a minor. Psychologist Kenneth Einhorn and surgeon Simon Chin were held responsible in Westchester County Supreme Court in White Plains for failing to follow the standards of care of reasonable doctors.
Varian had the “top surgery” at the age of 16 in 2019 with the consent of her mother, who said that she felt pressured into the procedure to avoid the risk of suicide.
Claire Deacon told The Epoch Times that Einhorn allegedly pushed her into the surgery: “This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing, that I felt like there was no good decision.”
Varian’s lawyers focused on Einhorn’s influence in pushing Varian to proceed with the life-changing procedure as a minor. They argued that the doctors overlooked co-existing issues like anxiety, depression, or family dynamics before causing “pain, suffering, and mental anguish of a permanent nature.”
Conversely, counsel for Einhorn and Chin argued that Varian showed improvement after the surgery and lived happily as a male for several years after surgery.
The jury awarded $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and an additional $400,000 for future medical expenses.
The case could be a model for other lawsuits over such surgeries performed on minors. There are more than two dozen such lawsuits currently pending in various courts.
European countries shifted away from medical intervention following the 2024 release in the UK of the Cass report, which raised serious medical concerns over some “gender affirmation” treatments for children.
Reading the case and the article linked by the professor it seems the parent Fox Varien was not really good at making decisions. She told the court she felt guilty and wracked with uncertainty but still agreed with the psychologist who insisted on the changes. Varien could have still said “no” at any time. The ultimate responsibility still lays with her, the parent.
It seems the parent is blaming the psychologist and surgeon for her inability to say “no” or seek a second or even a third opinion.
How come we try 16 even 13 year olds as adults when they commit a serious crime because they chose to, but not when they decide if they believe they are not normal and seek drastic surgery?
Why shouldn’t the parent/s be held accountable instead?
TS:DR-Too stupid, didn’t read.
You read the whole thing Hullbobby. Because you’ve been following the discussion all morning. It’s obvious.
You read the whole thing Hullbobby. Because you’ve been following the discussion all morning. It’s obvious.
When will you start your own Marxists blog – rather than being a Cheap Fake Marxist freeloading parasite here? A have a realistic fear that nobody would see your scribblings?
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
334 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
I follow the discussion, I don’t follow you. The only reason I am replying to this comment of yours is because it is only 16 words long and one of them is Hullbobby.
Sorry X, I honestly did stop reading your drivel, it is too predictable, too hypocritical, too contrarian and too partisan to bother spending my time on.
How come we try 16 even 13 year olds as adults when they commit a serious crime because they chose to
Only 3.7% of juveniles charged each year are tried as an adult – and prosecutors have to go before a judge in order to be granted that proceeding. No requirement for doctors to go before a judge to sexually neuture a minor.
Anybody want to claim that 3.7% of children are also choosing to be surgically and chemically mutilated if that’s the comparison we should be using while Biden’s Tranny Revolution starts failing??
And why desperately attempt to divert from the doctors to the parents?
Parents can’t be conned by doctors with their official title as medical experts? Just as they were by Dr. Fauci and the rest of Biden’s medical authorities on issues both dealing with Wuhan Flu and the Tranny Revolution?
X was preaching on behalf of Dr. Fauci and his medical expertise here for YEARS – the vaccine guarantees you won’t contract or pass on Wuhan Flu, a baggy procedures mask will protect you from aerosol virus, etc.
CBD, great comment and welcome to the Let’s Ignore X club.
The masking was to slow the spread from infected people to others. It’s why it was recommended early on, because it was found that Covid was transmissible prior to notable symptoms. Were you to experiment, put on a mask and try to blow out a candle. Masks reduce the range of viral particles during the short time they remain viable outside of human lungs. Lower range means less change to infect others.
It is typical of conservatives to think any imposition is solely for their benefit without a single thought about how what they do affects anyone else.
Vaccines similarly decrease the duration a person can carry Covid and therefore reduce the window of infectiousness. It’s a vaccine, not a force-field. It primes the immune system to react more quickly but that later reaction only happens when there are enough viral particles to react to. The vaccine creates a reaction in the form of antibodies and causes a template to be stored to get into production more quickly.
Since conservatives tout being self-reliant and then depending for others for most everything, it’s no surprise they don’t understand that it’s their own immune system that they have to rely on for an immune response.
It is the Conservative way to blame things that go badly from their decisions on others not stopping them from making those bad decisions. Much as they expect schools to instill the Conservative values in their children that the parents fail to do at home.
You are a vapid talking points machine Who appears to not even personally know one conservative person.
I sent all five of my children to schools that would simply reinforce what we were living, breathing, walking, and talking at home 24/7.
Which brings us full circle to this topic. The public schools are there to primarily reinforce the ideology of the teachers union and left-leaning teachers, and could not care less about what the parents think about it.
Matter of fact, they No longer even pretend to know what’s best for children. That’s basically their stated position nowadays And reason for operating in secrecy.
Let us consider the issue of age limits.
These exist for:
access to alcoholic beverages, driving, voting, joining the military, and having sex with adults, i.e. statutory rape.
Consider especially the last case.
The argument goes that people below a certain age, the so-called age of consent, are simply too young, too immature, to make some decisions concerning sex.
If they are too young to make a decision concerning sex, which in many cases will not have a permanent effect on them, how on earth can they be sufficiently mature to make a decision which will have a permanent effect on them?
This makes absolutely no sense.
And who is to blame for this sad state of affairs?
I place primary responsibilities on the medical associations, who support, endorse, advocate for, and whose members profit from, these medical interventions, describing them ludicrously as “medical necessities.”
It is the medical associations who both enable and profit from these interventions.
One might view that as a blatant conflict of interest.
We try children as young as 13 as adults when they commit crimes. It affects their lives permanently. If they are too young to make such decisions why do we treat them as adults only when crime is involved?
Children can not give informed consent for an emergency appendectomy yet it is accepted that they can consent for elective, permanent sexual mutilation. I can not see how such a consent by an adolescent or prepubertal child can be “informed”. Any parent that consents to such surgery for their child should be liable for future monetary damages if later sued by their child. It should take only a few successful such lawsuits with accompanying substantial monetary awards to wake up parents to their potential future financial risk of agreeing to consent to the sexual mutilation of their adolescent or prepubertal children.
Vincente, this may be a surprise, but the child did not consent to this surgery. Their parent did.
While it is a novel idea of children suing parents, I can imagine that some lawyers will go after conservative parents to make claims on behalf of the estate of a child who dies from a disease that the parents decided to avoid vaccination for.
Kieth, this may surprise you, but the child did not consent. Their parent did.
Children cannot consent to mutilation and/or sterilization. I can’t believe it’s taken this long to right this ship. I’ve always thought that the lawyers were the only ones who could put a stop to this madness. Until now they were too afraid of the mob. This small award is the blood in the water the victims need to get the legal profession to jump in feet first. Next up Hospitals and insurance companies and children suing their parents along with the voodoo Psych industry.
Tim, this surgery was not done on the consent of the child. It was with the consent of the parent. It does appear you are asking for people to commit perjury for financial gain over the results they initially requested.
Next we need to see schools and their cities sued for having teachers and administrators telling CHILDREN that they can be a different sex and to keep that secret from their parents. They went so far as to have a secret change of clothes at the school and would use a different name and pronouns away from the home. All while keeping it secret from the parents.
Sue not only the school teachers and administrators for their role in encouraging the delusion of childhood gender dysphoria but sue the teacher’s unions as well. I would pay big bucks for a seat in the courtroom to see and hear Randi Weingarten (AFT) and Rebecca Pringle (NEA) explain the data used by their respective unions to encourage their members to foster gender affirming care in school and the rationale for keeping the actions of teachers and school administrators from the student’s parents.
Excellent point, Hullbobby! At least in New York State teachers must meet certification requirements and be certified to teach students at specific grade levels and, at the secondary level, they must be certified in specific subjects. I do not believe that any of these certification requirements as in effect today would permit any teacher to venture into these areas – not even biology – without a parent’s knowledge.
Catherine, sadly I don’t think that areas of expertise matter to the radical school districts as they allow for these insanities to happen quite often. The teacher’s unions and the far left school committees have taken over vast swaths of our country and they are doing great damage and I don’t think that certification requirements will hold them back. I appreciate your comment!
HullBobby,
Yes!!! That right there!! I have made a few comments to the same effect before reading yours. I would only add, sue the politicians and lawmakers who pass laws in their state to protect the schools and teachers and give them license to interfere with or get in between a child and their parent or keeping their child’s well being secret from the parents. Sue those schools and teachers and this madness and sickness of child mutilation and abuse will end!
Right on Upstate!
Honor killing is part of conservative religious practice.
If a child who has spent their entire lives seeing how their parents treat them and others decides is it unwise to share a detail with their parents but they seek a responsible adult to get help, why wouldn’t that be acceptable?
If a parent is raping their child, is that a case where the teacher should not get in between the parent and child? What if a parent limits their behavior to psychological torture, telling their child they are filth and unloved for not keeping to the gender norms the parents are locked into?
hullbobby,
Children have been changing clothes at school for centuries to better fit in or ditch whatever demeaning outfits their parents place on them at home. Likewise administrators are not telling children any such thing about sex; what they are doing is not diverting attention from the task of teaching children the subjects they are required to teach.
If a child is terrified to tell something to their parents, then what more terror could there be to find that a person their parents tell them they should trust is not trustworthy? A significant number of parents are unhappy that their progeny isn’t a mini-me of themselves and beat them severely for that. Even those who hold back the balled fist often just kick them from the house, penniless, at 18.
But then I forget, conservative parents take no responsibility for understanding their own children.
“As more young adults step forward describing identical experiences of coercion and regret, the Varian decision may indeed open the floodgates—not out of vindictiveness, but as a legal correction to one of the most reckless medical fads of the 21st century. It signals that blind ideological zeal will no longer exempt clinicians from accountability, and that institutions exploiting adolescent confusion for profit will finally face the scrutiny of justice.”
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-fox-varian-malpractice-case
Is it really the doctors who are responsible or the parents? Everyone seems to be focusing on the doctors because…?
It’s odd that the parents aren’t being held accountable by the state.
Olly claims it’s the government’s responsibility to protect citizens from harm. Doctors only consult with parents and decide on what is best for their children at the time of consultation. They don’t encourage or force parents into a decision. The real question is, what about the parents? Does parental rights fit into this at all?
oh gawd, here comes georgie out from under his rock to challenge….whatever.
Strawman. I never absolved parents or doctors. There are multiple layers of responsibility here. Parents have duties. Doctors have an independent duty to refuse harm, regardless of consent. Medical institutions have a duty to enforce standards.
My point is that political actors also have a duty to set limits when minors are involved. Everyone else faces liability. The only party with a get-out-of-jail-free card is the government. That is the problem.
Olly, so you support things like mask mandates, required vaccines, etc. as government responsibility to keep citizens from harm?
Because, last time I checked. Conservatives and Libertarians were vehemently against government protecting citizens from harm when they opposed things like mask mandates and vaccination.
Medical institutions ensure standards are followed and often those standards also require the consent of the patient and in this case the parent. The parent has ultimate responsibility and a right to change their mind, even at the last possible second. Varien told the court she was racked with doubt and uncertainty about the procedure and the advice of the psychologist. She is also at fault for her inability to act on her doubts. Blaming the doctors for her failure to exercise responsibility to speak up about her doubts and say “no” is an avoidance of accepting the fact that she made a poor choice.
This is a false equivalence, and you keep repeating it. Opposing mask mandates or vaccine compulsion is not the same thing as opposing laws that restrict irreversible medical harm to minors. Those are categorically different questions.
Mandates regulate individual behavior. This case involves licensed professionals performing permanent medical interventions on children who are legally recognized as lacking full capacity. That is exactly where government has always drawn lines. We prohibit child labor, child marriage, and medical experimentation on minors regardless of parental consent. This is not new.
Yes, parents have responsibility. Yes, this parent failed to act on her doubts. That does not erase the independent duty of doctors to refuse harm, nor the duty of institutions to enforce restraint, nor the duty of lawmakers to set clear limits. Consent does not convert malpractice into good medicine. Doubt is not informed consent when the underlying standards are politically corrupted.
What you are really arguing is that responsibility should collapse downward onto the most vulnerable actors while political and institutional power remains untouched. That is not libertarianism or conservatism. That is selective accountability. Multiple parties failed here. The only ones structurally immune are the political actors who enabled the framework in the first place.
“Consent does not convert malpractice into good medicine.”
Thank you.
What a great statement. Thanks Lin.
Consent requires that the patient is fully informed of the risks, permanence of changes, and agrees that they have been informed. That is why you sign legal forms prior to any surgery.
Changing your mind after the fact does not make for bad medicine.
Consent permits a lawful act. It does not legalize malpractice, unethical conduct, or rights violations. No profession operates that way, and medicine is no exception. A signature is permission, not absolution.
A signature is also proof that you have been warned and advised of the risks. Meaning the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents.
Malpractice has more to do with botched procedures, operating on the wrong part, mistakes, leaving things in bodies, etc. The argument is about a doctor’s lack of refusal to do the surgery because a patient changed their mind or regrets the procedure long after the fact.
That is why there are detailed legal forms that are required to be signed and inform the parent of all the risks involved.
It’s like suing a doctor for failing to stop a vasectomy because HE should have known it was wrong. Long after the patient regretting to do the procedure and finding out it can’t be reversed.
Again, you have no comprehension of what you refer to.
(1) How is a patient to know that a medical practitioner has provided a comprehensive scope of risks, benefits, alternatives and/or what might have been left out or under-emphasized? I’m sure that the actual trial transcript will show that she was questioned and cross-examined on this. -The jury apparently did not agree with you–a NY jury no less.
(2) As I mentioned earlier, the jury also would have to consider whether Einhorn was providing an objective platform for “informed consent,” or instead aggressively inserting his political ideology and activist stance into the equation.
(3) A third component is the “power dynamic,” i.e., the imbalance of power between a medical provider and an under-informed and often emotionally fragile patient, making the patient more susceptible to influence. There may have been testimony in which Einhorn actively encouraged Varian without consulting other physicians for advice in her care or referring her to other professionals to provide care, as provided in AMA ethics code.
(4) This was a high-profile case within the medical community. I can only assume that the parent went through top-notch aggressive cross-examination about whether or not she sought a second opinion, and whether the heavy weight of Einstein’s warning of potential suicide of her daughter created a fear and imbalance in her ability to make independent decisions.
(5) for 20 years, my only litigation cases were either in employment/labor or medical malpractice defense. And you?
A signature should mean that the person has been told about risks and benefits. Sometimes the signature means some (partial) information about risks was discussed, and sometimes it means a patient was offered information but said “don’t bother to tell me. I trust your judgment.” In the case of the covid shot I received it meant “you have to sign to get the shot, but no risk information is available.”
Malpractice is when there is an outcome that was not disclosed or expected. For example when Joan Rivers died during a minor procedure, what the surgeon did was not part of the expected procedure, hence malpractice.
Call your broker. Tell him you want to invest all your money in Tesla shorts and, if he lets you and all your money goes away, sue him for malpractice. See how far that goes.
Olly, you’re deflecting.
“ This is a false equivalence, and you keep repeating it. Opposing mask mandates or vaccine compulsion is not the same thing as opposing laws that restrict irreversible medical harm to minors.”
You claim Congress has a responsibility to keep citizens from foreseeable harm. Mask mandates and requiring vaccines are about keeping citizens from foreseeable harm.
“ Mandates regulate individual behavior.”
Individual behavior that affects the rest of the population is exactly the harm Congress is supposed to protect you from, your claim Olly.
“ Yes, parents have responsibility. Yes, this parent failed to act on her doubts. That does not erase the independent duty of doctors to refuse harm, nor the duty of institutions to enforce restraint, nor the duty of lawmakers to set clear limits. Consent does not convert malpractice into good medicine. Doubt is not informed consent when the underlying standards are politically corrupted“
But you don’t want to lay responsibility on the parents. You’re using the doctor’s “duty” to excuse the parent’s poor choice. Their duty is to provide the parent with all the information to make a decision. It’s ultimately the parent who decides. You already acknowledge that the parent could have said “no” at any time. But she didn’t. Once she signed the consent forms. The doctors were just doing what the patient’s parent chose to do.
“ What you are really arguing is that responsibility should collapse downward onto the most vulnerable actors while political and institutional power remains untouched. That is not libertarianism or conservatism.”
Actually it is. Libertarians and some conservatives. Believe the ultimate responsibility to choose lies with you. That is the whole point of “personal responsibility” in their view. That is why they believe in keeping government out of your life as much as possible. Small government means. As little regulation as possible and responsibilities such as medical decisions, what drugs to take, driving without seatbelts, etc. rest solely with you. Not government. They emphasize you are responsible for determining what is safe or not. Not government.
This is your standard move. You loop words, strip them of context, reframe them, and build strawmen so the argument never resolves. That isn’t debate. It’s semantic looping. My position is clear and unchanged. I’m not playing semantic whack-a-mole. Thread closed.
Olly, you don’t seem to understand what a “strawman argument” is. I’m pointing out your contradiction and you’re deflecting by claiming I’m making a strawman argument.
This has nothing to do with semantics. You claim Congress has a responsibility to keep citizens from harm. Mask mandates and vaccination requirements fall under that responsibility because it affects everyone. Not just individuals. You are trying to have it both ways and you can’t defend it.
You switched to “personal choice” without recognizing that it’s not just an individual choice when a whole lot of “individual choices” threaten to harm the rest of citizens. And the government, according to YOUR claim is responsible to protect citizens from harm. You’re trying to disassociate one from the other to have it both ways is the flaw in your argument.
Olly understands the strawman argument. He has a factory that produces them in volume.
“Mask mandates and requiring vaccines are about keeping citizens from foreseeable harm.”
Joe Biden: “ you’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccines.”
Re masks…Randomized controlled trials, like the 2020 DANMASK-19 study in Denmark, found **no statistically significant reduction in infection risk from surgical masks in community settings**
Sheesh… even Fauci stated before Congressthe rule “sort of just appeared” without his direct involvement or specific clinical trials comparing distances like 3 feet versus 6 or 10 feet.
Given that we all know that we were pretty much lied to all along from the Biden administration, it’s completely unsurprising that you are unperturbed by that indisputable fact.
Go team.
How did those bleach injections do for you? That ivermectine study – turns out that it really did work, but only on people who were immunocompromised by parasite infestation. If one is filled with worms there is less to fight covid, but if there’s no worms, then ivermectin doesn’t make a difference. Or shoving damaging UV lamps into lungs where the delicate lung cells would be cooked. All great recommendations from Trump.
I’m beginning to believe that you have a reading comprehension problem.
you earlier stated: “Mask mandates and requiring vaccines are about keeping citizens from foreseeable harm.”
the operative words in your statement were mandates and requiring vaccines.
I then pointed out the fallacy in your statement by showing Joe Biden outright lied about the efficacy of taking the mandated vaccine, as well as the ineffectiveness of using masks in public.
In true form, you answered with the ultimate non sequitur By pointing out non-mandated Suggestions/recommendations coming from Republicans/conservatives/physicians.
See the difference? You put your faith in the government.
I put my faith in my God-given ability to go through all of the data myself and to choose for myself the best course of action.
Question for you? Did you get a high school diploma, or did you settle for a GED?
Olly, very well said. X is just arguing for the sake of arguing and is unable to logical thinking. Just ignore him. You are absolutely right in allocating accountability where it belongs: parents at the lowest level, doctors and medical associations at the intermediate lever, and politicians at the highest level. Unfortunately, you are also correct that the latter category will escape accountability – as always I might add.
DoubleDutch,
Well said.
One the problems we are seeing is lawmakers in some states passing law to cover and give license for schools and teachers to interfere, get in between a child and their parents and even keep the parents in the dark about their child’s well being. Those schools, the teachers and as you point out, the lawmakers need to held accountable. While the politicians seem always escape accountability, I would be good with public shaming and confrontation by those they hurt.
No one is asking teachers to interfere. They are expecting to keep whatever is private information of a child private. If the child wants to share something with their parents the teacher isn’t stopping them.
Teachers ARE interfering in the student/parent relationship.
Your comment assumes teachers merely respect a child’s “private information” without interference, but school policies in places like California and Maryland actively direct staff to deceive parents by using birth names/pronouns only around them.
This isn’t passive privacy; it’s active concealment, as seen in districts reverting language to avoid “outing” a child.
If a child can share voluntarily, why do policies block teachers from doing so when parents inquire?
Teachers have a legal duty to inform parents about significant issues involving their children, creating a clear contradiction when they withhold information on gender transitions.
Schools require parental permission for minor actions like administering aspirin, yet some policies allow secrecy on life-altering gender identity matters, undermining parental authority.
Why are you ok with some schools/districts/states circumventing parental involvement in a critical issue involving their minor children, with some being as young as eight or nine years old?
That’s right… Because you trust the government to do right by the child more so than the parents. That seems to be the liberal dogma.
Olly wasn’t arguing about parents responsibility. He was placing responsibility on Government and the doctors. I pointed out that the parent’s responsibility was being sidelined and focus on the doctors was wrong.
Without moral formation, every argument becomes pedantic. Law and consent only work when restraint and duty are assumed. Remove that, and harm gets justified instead of prevented.
Accountability exists at multiple levels, as you noted, but it only matters if it is complete. Parents, professionals, institutions, and political actors all have duties. When accountability stops before it gets to the top, failure becomes systemic rather than accidental. That is the concern I’m raising.
“What you are really arguing is that responsibility should collapse downward onto the most vulnerable actors while political and institutional power remains untouched. ”
How do you feel about lenders giving college loans to the vulnerable students without regard to the potential to repay? Seems like financial malpractice. Time to sue?
I regret that George is unable to comprehend the difference between legislatures responsible for the general welfare of a collective populace vs. the personal trust and guidance, i.e., the fiduciary “special relationship” between a medical practitioner and a parent regarding a particular patient.
The pleadings in this case are sealed but I presume that “Informed consent” count is a big part of this case. Of course, informed consent does not mean ideological advocacy and activism; it means making certain that your patient or guardian understands the benefits, risks, unknowns, and alternatives for a proposed treatment. In my state, accepted SOPs required fiduciaries to affirmatively advise their patients/clients to seek a second opinion before making a decision.
Lin, you seem to have the same problem as Olly. You want to have it both ways.
Olly claims Congress is responsible for keeping citizens safe from foreseeable harms. But says things like mask mandates and required vaccination are not about keeping citizens safe from harm. It’s a clear contradiction.
Conservatives love to inject themselves into personal choices of others and use legislation to effectuate a choice when it’s an issue they don’t agree with because… values. Right?
“ Of course, informed consent does not mean ideological advocacy and activism; it means making certain that your patient or guardian understands the benefits, risks, unknowns, and alternatives for a proposed treatment.“
Which is a fancy way of saying it’s ultimately the responsibility of the parent, not the doctors. As you noted, in some states a second opinion is required. This parent does not seem to have sought a second opinion. Obviously she had doubts, even just before the surgery.
She could have stopped it at any time. Right? So who was ultimately responsible for deciding on the procedure? I’m sure you know doctors ask multiple times if this is what they want. Right? They make sure parents know the risks, know they can change their mind at the last minute. Right? And and still did not do anything until years later.
Yes, George, mea culpa. Defendants Olly and I (as your assumed “conservatives;” I cannot speak for Olly) join those who, as you say, “love to inject [our]selves into personal choices of others and use legislation to effectuate a choice when it’s an issue [we] don’t agree with because… values. Right?”
Please forgive us/me.
(btw, you’ve just very recently but frequently started to end your declarative statements by asking, “Right?”
-Is this your version of “n’est ce pas?” I’m flattered.)
The Conservative issues with covid vaccines and masks were / are because neither was an effective deterrent for that particular viral infection.
Exactly Suze. X knows this has always been the conservative position. The strawman isn’t confusion. It’s a tactic.
You are the master of the logical fallacy.
this conservative believes that it’s the government‘s role to do for its citizens what it can’t do for itself.
Namely, in the case of Covid, provide valid information that will enable each individual ADULT to make the best determination for THEMSELVES.
You appear to be playing the contrarian role, or, you have a serious deficiency when it comes to reading comprehension.
The discussion now is centered on adult coercion and medical manipulation upon children, without the consent or knowledge of their parents, in some/many cases.
You are defending the defenseless, almost like the Japanese soldier who holed up in the cave until the 1970s after Japan surrendered in 1945.
He was unable/unwilling to admit defeat, but you may want to take a page out of your liberal compadre stooges in the UK who abandoned this policy after the Cass review came to light.
In case you were unaware, i DoctorCass begrudgingly stated the evidence base for medical interventions like puberty blockers in under‑18s was “uncertain” or “weak”, and that gender medicine for children was being practiced on “shaky foundations.”
It also highlighted very long waits, rapidly rising referrals, and concern that some young people were being fast‑tracked into medical pathways without robust, holistic assessment.
But yeah… Go hide in your cave. Someone will eventually inform you that you are on the wrong side of history. Again.
Olly hates being confronted with the logical outcome of his rules. What he really is going for is a general hatred of transsexuals and wants to punish anyone who doesn’t share that hate. I suspect the real problem is that Olly is afraid that some very hot looking girl used to be a boy and that makes him feel uncomfortable. Rather than controlling his own emotions he wants the world around to accept his limitations; ironic really.
“Is it really the doctors who are responsible or the parents? Everyone seems to be focusing on the doctors because…?”
Because these interventions are being billed as “medical necessities.”
Who gets to decide what is medically necessary?
The doctors.
This should be obvious.
Nope. The psychologist only told the parent that her child may be susceptible to suicide if she didn’t consider the procedure. The ultimate responsibility for the decision lies with the parent. We don’t know if she sought a second or even a third opinion.
Obviously she had doubts about the psychologist’s opinion and had several “heated” discussions. It’s alleged Varien was pressured to do the procedure, however it’s still ultimately the parent who decided not the doctors. Should the patent not be held liable for making a poor decision or blame the doctors for not dissuading her from it? It almost sounds like case of buyers remorse.
Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, testified she opposed the surgery but consented because she feared her daughter would commit suicide without it. This is a common occurrence with young people suffering from gender dysphoria. In 2024, the New York Times reported how parents of confused children are often emotionally blackmailed into consenting to these procedures when doctors tell them ‘Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?’
Are the children emotionally blackmailing the parents? They can and a weak-willed parent can succumb to it. Why do we automatically assume the doctors are at fault?
We are talking about 16 year old who believed she was male at the time.
Doctors only consult with parents and decide on what is best for their children at the time of consultation.
No. Doctors don’t only consult! The doctors in question take knives and cut organs off the body of the young, mutilating them for life, abandoning the ever-lasting idea, ‘do no harm.” Their job is to improve life, not to make it worse. I think doctors should perform a lobotomy on you to help make you normal. Is that fine with you?
S. Meyer
I agree, this genital mutilation of the young is thoroughly shameful, and it should be outlawed with the strongest possible criminal penalties.
Circumcision comes to mind as perhaps the most shameful and harmful act of genital mutilation of poor defenseless children. Anyone who performs such a disgraceful procedure should be imprisoned for life, along with the parents who willingly subject their children to this horrific mutilation.
That argument is not new, but part of a continuous religious ceremony for over 3,000 years.
The benefits stated include:
A reduction in penile cancer rates
Reduced urinary tract infections
Lower risks of transferred STDs
Reduced partner risk of cancer
The risks are very low if done by a professional
Tips are large 🙂
Not to mention that comparing cutting off a little bit of skin with chopping off an entire organ is about as silly an argument as one can imagine. Not unexpected, though, coming from Anonymous the Stupid.
S. Meyer
So, what you are saying is that genital mutilation is perfectly fine when done for religious reasons.
Perhaps we can extend this argument. Perhaps genital surgery for the purposes of treating gender dysphoria should simply be declared to be a “religious ceremony”.
After all, what is good for one religious group should be equally applied for all religious groups, unless of course you believe that some religions are “more equal than others”.
Don’t you agree ????
I’m sure you do, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.
It appears that logic, common sense, and intelligence don’t exist under your anonymous banner.
I am not arguing one way or another for circumcision, but am fighting against the mutilation of minors for personal gain.
Your statement is ignorant, but let me ask you. Are you fighting for castration because of a lack of castratos? Have you compared the relative benefits to harm? I doubt you have meaningful knowledge of such relationships.
S. Meyer
Your hypocrisy knows no limits.
You say you are not arguing one way or the other for genital mutilation in the form of circumcision, but your argument at 8:21 was clearly an argument in favor of circumcision, in which you touted the medical benefits. Your current denial of arguing for or against circumcision is grossly hypocritical. You are denying your own statement at 8:21.
Let’s examine you hypocrisy further.
You say that while not arguing for or against circumcision, you are willing to argue against other forms of alleged “genital mutilation” for personal gain. This is yet more hypocrisy. Circumcision is simply genital mutilation of minors for personal gain. It is a procedure for which money changes hands. Whoever performs the procedure does it for “personal gain”.
I repeat, your hypocrisy knows no limits.
I would also add that when you resort to insults and attempt to change the subject to castration of castratos, you admit that you have lost the argument.
It is very difficult to deal with dumb people. I said I didn’t argue one way or the other on circumcision, which is true. I presented the benefits to respond, and that is why that statement was added. I forgive you for your comment based on your limited intelligence.
I gave reasons for circumcision and benefits. You can argue why it should not exist, but then argue why ear piercing should be permitted.
Gather your thoughts together so you don’t sound so shallow.
Give it up, Seth. Stop arguing with this guy. He called you out on your hypocrisy and he is correct.
He is making you look like a fool.
Spell out the hypocrisy. If you don’t, we know why. Ignorance is your calling card.
Meyer, there is no point arguing with this Anon. You are way out of his league. He is playing in the majors, while you play pee wee ball.
He makes you look silly, especially when all you do is respond with insults.
I have to agree. Meyer is not doing himself any favors here. He usually contributes meaningful comments, but here he just comes across as petty with his inappropriate responses.
” He usually contributes meaningful comments, “
That is right. I have to stoop to a much lower level when dealing with the anonymous twins. I provide meaningful comments. What do you guys provide? Nothing.
Not only does S. Meyer respond with insults when someone points out the inconsistencies in his comments, but he always tries to change the subject by demanding that his critics explain their position on some unrelated matter, as if that somehow justifies his original position on the question at hand. For example, at 8.56pm he calls the commenter ignorant and then demands an opinion about the castration of castratos. Then again, at 10.04pm, he insults another commenter by saying he or she has limited intelligence, and then changes the subject to demand an opinion about ear piercing.
Historically this has been his modus operandi for some time. First insult, then change the subject.
This is disturbingly abnormal behavior and not at all conducive to any kind of rational discussion.
Judging by other remarks here, there are several others who have also recognized this behavior.
“he always tries to change the subject ”
All the examples I stated are related. They all involve some form of bodily mutilation, beginning with the removal of breasts in minor children. That led you, or one of your counterparts, to bring up circumcision: “Circumcision comes to mind as perhaps the most shameful and harmful act of genital mutilation of poor defenseless children.” I explained some of the benefits of circumcision, yet you still complained.
From there, the discussion turned to broader questions of what society deems acceptable. I mentioned ear piercing, which is considered normal but still involves invading the body and creating risk. In the extreme, piercing can be seen as body mutilation, though when done on an adult, it’s a matter of choice.
Then you, or another, said, “After all, what is good for one religious group should be equally applied to all religious groups, unless of course you believe that some religions are more equal than others.” That claim, though seemingly about fairness, actually exposes the inconsistency at the heart of these moral judgments. Naturally, I showed how that type of logic leads to castratos, some of whom were used in church choirs.
Each example, from child surgeries to circumcision, piercing, and castration, illustrates how cultural and religious context defines what counts as ‘mutilation’ versus ‘tradition.’
In the end, I tied together all your complaints, or those of another, and did so clearly. You simply couldn’t see it. Ignorance can be educated, but stupid is forever.
I disagree that S. Meyer makes meaningful comments. I find his comments to be superficial and pedantic, which becomes all the more obvious when he is challenged with reasonable counter-arguments as with the Anon he has engaged with above. He appears unable to engage in reasonable debate. Instead he simply impugns those who dare to challenge him with pointless insults.
” which becomes all the more obvious when he is challenged with reasonable counter-arguments as with the Anon he has engaged with above. “
Quote the challanging reasonable counter-arguments. You can’t.
This response by S. Meyer, and the one above at 9:05, are precisely the types of pedantic, in-your-face comments that people notice about him. He posts an opinion, then when someone challenges or criticizes him, his only response is this kind of surly riposte that he seems to think is a clever put-down, but simply reveals his shallow intellect.
Obviously I am not the only one to notice this
“Obviously I am not the only one to notice this”
You are correct. Every anonymous troll that notices this is one of your twins writing from the same computer. Go ahead and copy any facts I provide and prove them wrong. We prove you wrong daily.
Conservatives focus on the doctors because conservatives refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. They’ll put a 16 year old in the seat of a 400 HP Mustang and then be surprised when the child destroys it. For conservatives, it is always the fault of someone else.
Projection.
Liberals refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.
They’ll watch a woman blocking the road with her car in an attempt to interfere with a lawful immigration action, ignore police orders to get out of the car, and then drive the car towards a cop and hit him in an attempt to avoid arrest.
They will then blame the cop for shooting her All because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Well put doctor. Thank you
Lin,
Other people who should be considered for lawsuits other than the doctors are teachers or school counsels who keep the whole gender dysphoria from parents or pressure young people into even questioning their sex. A teacher who asks a child what sex they are should be a red flag, that teacher is harming the child.
Upstate Farmer: I agree with you 110% but that is another subject that might start an OT thread, so we’ll just leave it at that.
Generally, I don’t like the sound of medical malpractice. In these cases, I want to see the cash registers ring on almost every case, though I think incarceration would be better.
Hit them in the purse and then send them to jail.
Let’s stop and think for a moment. What goes on in a doctor’s mind that justifies the mutilation of a child?
The doctor must have read the studies produced by the doctors of the brain in his search for justification.
The doctors of the brain confirmed his personal bias so out pops the scalpel. He then drops the severed breasts into the hazmat disposal bag, removes his surgical gloves and then thoroughly washes his hands in preparation for the removal of a boys penis scheduled for the afternoon. At the end of the week he checks his bank account to make sure that all payments have been properly received. After having done so he thinks about the taste of the fine wine he will drink at his evening meal. Success is all that matters.
Thankfully the wine has now turned bitter to the tune of two million dollars. If there’s any justice in the world his bankruptcy and lose of his right to practice should soon follow.
Did anyone else not receive the entire article?? There seem to be sentences &, perhaps, paragraphs missing in the email that I received!
Chances are that the surgeon, and possibly the psychologist, will suffer no personal economic loss. Most hospitals in New York State require medical and surgical staff to carry personal professional liability insurance in order to maintain hospital privileges. Minimum coverage is typically $1 million per claim and $3 million per year in aggregate claims. Many hospitals now require $1.3/$3.9 million. Psychologists in New York State are also not mandated to carry professional liability insurance however, one truly must be an idiot to not have coverage considering the profiles of their patients and the financial risk of defending a false claim. Typical coverage for psychologists is $1 million/$3 million. While they will likely not personally suffer financially, their cases will more likely than not be reviewed by the state medical board and state board for psychology. In my opinion, for buying into the widespread delusion of gender dysphoria in adolescents that requires irreversible sexual mutilation, they should have their licenses to practice revoked or at least severely restricted, if only to protect future children from mutilation under the guise of indicated medical care. This current gender dysphoria delusion is beginning to look similar to the Salem witch trials delusion of the 1600s.
What about doing it to 18-year-olds? Then there are no sticky parents. Once you’re old enough to vote for president you can get surgery to look like any character in a video or else buy a firearm and shoot yourself, right?
Some don’t wait until 18 to kill themselves. The US is awash in guns.
“What goes on in a doctor’s mind that justifies the mutilation of a child?”
Dollar signs go through their mind. That’s it. You made the point eloquently.
Meet Drs. Mengele: Psychologist Kenneth Einhorn and surgeon Simon Chin
Meet the mother who took her child to Drs. Mengele: Claire Deacon
Meet the bottom-feeders getting fat on Dr. Mengele’s carcasses: “There are more than two dozen such lawsuits . . .”
There is nobody to root for in this horrific story (except, maybe, the 16-year-old Varian).
So the transgender grift went from being a juicy opportunity for doctors to make money to an even juicier opportunity for lawyers to make even more money.
I respectfully disagree. The lawyers will be the undoing of this macabre practice that has seen psychologists, surgeons, hospitals and pharma companies make millions of dollars at the expense of children. I am not saying that lawyers won’t be cashing in, but a corrective isn’t the same as a grift.
I have been waiting for this type of malpractice case to come forth. The science behind “trans” surgeries was always very shaky to almost non existent. The main argument was to prevent suicide and yet study after study showed no significant improvement in suicide rates and this “movement” ignored decades of data that showed puberty was the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria disorder. In spite of that A whole industry was built around this treatment with hormones and surgery and virtually all of it was illicit.
Just like the bone marrow transplant scam for solid organ cancers.
I hope the whole industry gets crushed in a wave of malpractice suits. They multilated these children willfully.
The parents should also bear a significant responsibility because many pushed children into this choice, although some parents were simply misinformed by their medical providers. Also schools who have preached and pressured children about this should get sued.
It pleases me no end that the psychologist was also hit with this suit. The American Psychological Association needs to get their act together as well as the American College of Surgery. They have allowed this and not policed their organizations. State medical boards should also start yanking some licenses and the sooner the better.
I have too, GEB. So many permanent consequences from what is a social contagion. We adults should have told the kids “no”. Told the teenagers “no”. Told the psychologically unwell young adults “no”. There is no trans.
“This is not a defense of doctors. They had an independent duty to do no harm and failed it.”
Unfortunately, that failure is indicative of medicine today. Far too many (most, by my observation) doctors are salesmen, first and foremost. If they are “elite” enough to charge astronomical fees for their services (whether paid directly by the patient or by third parties) the sales pitch is on their own behalf; otherwise it typically is on behalf of Big Pharma; but a sales pitch it is, nevertheless. I have not fully trusted the medical profession in many years, and that trust is constantly (and currently) diminishing. I fully understand that there is significant risk in evaluating my own medical well-being and needs, while relying on established medicine only for measurements and very limited advice, rather than faithfully following its recommendations, but in my judgement that has become a far lesser risk that blindly adhering to current medical practices.
” doctors are salesmen, first and foremost”
There are others to blame, such as hospital administrators, and all who brought this type of mutilation to big business, encouraging all who were involved.
Exactly. Administrators, corporate medicine, and advocacy networks helped turn this into a business. Accountability exists at every layer except the political one. That asymmetry is the problem.
And the parents. Everyone seems quick to blame the doctors and ignore the parents.
Whatever happened do parental rights and how they are the only ones who determine what is best for their children?
If the parental rights you now claim to defend had been protected when you were young, you might not be such a weasel today. Now you seek to mutilate children for your own twisted pleasures. There is such a thing as child abuse, and if anyone had recognized it in your case, your history might not be so tragic, and you wouldn’t sound like the village idiot.
X
I would suggest that you ignore comments by S. Meyer.
He is well known here as a “lesser thinker”.
As we all know, those with a “higher mind” prefer to “watch in silence”. Unfortunately Meyer is unable to “watch in silence” which identifies him as one of those lamentable “lesser thinkers”.
It sounds like your feelings were hurt. Go run to mommy and tell her what a bad job she did in teaching you how to think.
X
Do you see what I mean here ???
Meyer, the “lesser thinker”, is completely unable to “watch in silence”, which everyone agrees is the mark of one with a “higher mind”.
Most unfortunate. The more he comments, the more he confirms his status as a “lesser thinker”.
You continue to fail. There is no meat in your comments and no name or icon in the area provided. You are empty there and intellectually.
X
This is a truly fascinating and revealing interaction with Meyer, don’t you agree?
His continued comments with “something to say” further confirm his status as a “lesser thinker”. His inability to “watch in silence” indicates that he does not possess a “higher mind”.
Thus far we have irrefutable qualitative proof of his “lesser thinking”.
The only question at this point is how long he will continue to have “something to say” and whether any continuation of his responses indicate that his “lesser thinking” grows ever more quantitatively “lesser”.
I propose the following hypothesis.
The more Meyer continues to respond with “something to say”, the “lesser” his thinking becomes until his “lesser thinking” reaches absolute zero.
We should start a running tally of his comments to determine whether there is any correlation between the number of comments and the diminution of his “lesser thinking”
You are as empty as Sigmund Fraud, and you know what happened to him. Your head is empty enough that some of the homeless people in Mandami’s NY can live there instead of freezing to death in the streets.
Who is Sigmund Fraud ????
And what happened to him ????
Inquiring minds want to know !!!!
Don’t tax your brain.
Next up Tattoo “Artists”: A guy walks into a tattoo shop and gets his girlfriend’s name inked on his arm. After sobering up he discovers that his wife objects to the new artwork. He sues because it is obviously the artist’s fault, not his own.
Are you high? 45 states require you to be over 18 (adult). The other 5 require written parental consent
This is a horrible analogy. Just horrible. And it’s thoughtless and callous. Comparing a tattoo to a mutilating surgery that is irreversible? I wonder what you would think of a woman who underwent a double mastectomy because she was told she was going to die from cancer only to find that the doctor made it up. To be charitable, I am hoping that you were too dense to think through what you just wrote. As a woman I’m disgusted by it!
Call me old fashioned (& yes, I know I’m) but it traumatized ME as an adult to think about children having these irreversible medical surgeries. I will defer to those with greater knowledge then I, but on this issue, someone was asleep at the wheel. When I was a teen the fad was mini skirts/dresses. If you really wanted to make your parents apoplectic chew gum or, heaven forbid, smoke or put yourself right in a grave, FORNICATE. We all had or knew of someone who maybe was or was reported to be “ queer”. At that time “queer” was a pejorative and unkind to say. “They” were just “different “! Praise God, that has changed along with other things in our society that were just ignorant. Not because we are cruel beings, we were just not “enlightened”. Since the beginning of time, we humans, have had to change and evolve to become our better selves. We are a species that can change, adapt & by God’s Grace be better. However, something has taken over our brothers and sisters. There is a GODLESSNESSES that is attempting to change who we are. Our most precious asset, our children, are being stolen from us , right under our noses, by influences that are meant to harm them and subtly and not so subtly change who we are as a society. Hitler was able to rise to power, slowly but surely, by corrupting the minds of the youth. This is sadly what I now see happening here. Other nations, protect their children! Why haven’t we?
I agree with your concern and your belief that we can improve. But human nature doesn’t change, which is why free societies depend on limits and accountability rather than trust alone. When those guardrails fail, especially for children, the consequences follow.
Of note, transgender surgery / medicines also sterilizes our children.
A rare condition, known as “hermaphroditism” may cause a person to be born with a mixture of male and female characteristics. In such situations it may make rational sense to try to square the circle, so to speak. Apart from that, transgender “treatments” for children is nothing short of child abuse.
Sex change is child abuse? No such laws in the USA.
Rational sense? According to who? The Drs. who did the work thought they were being rational.
I definitely say people should have to wait until they are 21, and if they still feel this way, then as a consenting adult, proceed how one sees fit. To warp the bodies and minds of children for whom this would otherwise never even be a thought is unconscionable. I hope more of the suits are successful.
In my experience, those >/= 21 years of age who request these things are not well psychologically. They are on depression and anxiety medications, are never thriving in the world (doing well in college, for example), taking medications for ADHD, have a history of suicide attempts. One could say that if they were allowed to “transition” that these psychological problems would improve or go away, that their inability to transition was in large part the reason for their despair. OR…they’re not in any way mentally well enough to make such a big decision. And in addition, these surgeries should be paid out of pocket–no insurance.
@Anonymous
Agreed. I think it also likely most would have lost interest by then if they were simply chasing a quick-fix fad, and I believe most of them are. When I was younger it was coming out as ‘gay’. You got accolades, parties, admiration, an ‘in’ to what was perceived as a hip club, and all born of arrogance or narcissism that kinda just pissed the actual gay community off, and rightly so IMO.
Amazing how many were no longer gay in their 30s, with jobs, opposite sex spouses, and children. This though, is something you can’t just nervously laugh off, and kids are largely far too naive to project themselves into their genuine adult years. That should go without saying, but here we are, for such an array of reasons, all making the perfect storm.
I’m only here to try and keep a breast of the situation…
This is the Democratic Party.
No, it was a couple of MD’s. As the jury decided.
I’d be interested in knowing the % of Democrats vs that of Republicans who favor this type of surgery on minors
When adults impose their own sexual fantasies on children: child abuse by any other name is still child abuse.
How to you imply sexual fantasy from this case? No mention of it whatsoever.
It was all about the fees and an ego event for them.
The Founders shielded legislators from intimidation, not from responsibility. As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 57), accountability to the people was supposed to restrain abuse of power.
What this lawsuit exposes is a breakdown of that design. Congress forfeited its duty to protect citizens, especially minors, from foreseeable harm, while the Speech or Debate Clause insulates lawmakers from consequence. The result is predictable.
Liability flows downstream to doctors and institutions acting in a politicized environment, while those who enabled or protected the policy framework remain untouchable.
That is not constitutional balance. It is accountability inverted.
This is not a defense of doctors. They had an independent duty to do no harm and failed it. The issue is chain of responsibility. Everyone failed here, but accountability has a ceiling. Liability flows downward and never reaches Congress, even though protecting citizens from foreseeable harm is their job.
So you now ask and answer your comments?
Olly,
“ Liability flows downward and never reaches Congress, even though protecting citizens from foreseeable harm is their job.”
Opposing view;
Are you sure about that? Libertarians and conservatives would disagree with you. If Congress’ job is protecting citizens from foreseeable harm then the vaccine mandates should have been legally enforceable. Right? Enforcing masks during COVID shouldn’t have been an issue. Telling people to not eat Tide pods, hold fireworks in your hands, wear seatbelts, etc. because it’s their job to protect citizens and any foreseeable harm.
Remember, SCOTUS ruled that police have no obligation to protect anyone from harm. That’s not their job. They are not obligated to rescue anyone even defend children being shot by a gunman in school as we have learned in a recent Uvalde school shooting case.
According to Libertarian and some Christian views liability flows upward. You’re responsible for your own actions and choices. The doctors in this case according to Libertarian and some Christian views should not be liable. The 16 year old’s parents should. Because they are the ones who decided to go ahead with the procedure.
This conflates two very different concepts. Protecting citizens from foreseeable harm does not mean Congress must police every personal risk or compel individual behavior. It means Congress has a duty to set lawful boundaries when institutions exercise power over minors in irreversible ways.
Vaccine mandates, mask rules, seatbelts, or warnings about reckless behavior regulate individual choice. This case involves licensed professionals performing permanent medical interventions on children under a framework Congress allowed, encouraged, or subsidized without clear limits or evidence standards.
The Supreme Court rulings you cite concern the absence of an individual duty for police to rescue in specific emergencies. They do not eliminate Congress’s legislative duty to regulate professions, protect minors, or prevent foreseeable institutional harm. That distinction matters.
Personal responsibility still applies. Doctors have an independent duty to do no harm. Parents have a duty to protect their children. Both can be true at the same time. The problem is that accountability stops at Congress. Lawmakers helped shape the policy environment, yet face no consequence when it fails. Responsibility is distributed, but immunity is not. That imbalance is the issue.
Olly,
“ This conflates two very different concepts. Protecting citizens from foreseeable harm does not mean Congress must police every personal risk or compel individual behavior.”
No, you’re trying to have it both ways. Protecting citizens from foreseeable harm means protecting all of them from personal choices which include sex change operations decided by parents of minors. Because ultimately it’s a personal choice of the parent who decides for the child.
“ Vaccine mandates, mask rules, seatbelts, or warnings about reckless behavior regulate individual choice.“
Individual choices that harm the rest of the citizens which you say the government has a responsibility to protect from harm.
“ The Supreme Court rulings you cite concern the absence of an individual duty for police to rescue in specific emergencies. They do not eliminate Congress’s legislative duty to regulate professions, protect minors, or prevent foreseeable institutional harm. That distinction matters.”
Not to a small government conservative or Libertarian. Remember, they are against government regulation and for personal responsibility. Meaning you’re ultimately responsible for your choices. Not the doctors, engineers, companies selling you dangerous products, etc. You are responsible for your choices.
“ It means Congress has a duty to set lawful boundaries when institutions exercise power over minors in irreversible ways.“
Not according to Libertarians and some conservatives. Congress has no duty to protect minors from harm. If that were true. Gun control would be enacted to protect children from harm and prevent school shootings. SCOTUS ruled even cops are not obligated to protect children at school shootings.
“ Personal responsibility still applies. Doctors have an independent duty to do no harm. Parents have a duty to protect their children. Both can be true at the same time. The problem is that accountability stops at Congress. Lawmakers helped shape the policy environment, yet face no consequence when it fails. Responsibility is distributed, but immunity is not. That imbalance is the issue.“
Both can be true in very limited circumstances. This is not one of them. Doctors are a duty to do no harm, but there are times when they must do harm to save the life of a patient. If a parent consents to a procedure after lengthy consultation AND getting a second or even a third opinion doctors performing a mastectomy on a minor which is extremely rare by the way. Are doing what the parent ultimately agreed to. It was her personal decision, her choice. She clearly had doubts and could have said “no” at any time.
What was her child telling her? Was the 16 year olds’s insistence a factor on the parent’s decision? Perhaps.
You’re claiming Congress has a responsibility to keep citizens from harm, but mask mandates and vaccine requirements are “personal choices” that government had no business regulating. That’s quite a contradiction.
This isn’t a disagreement. It’s you repeatedly redefining terms so you never have to answer the actual argument.
You keep asserting that “protecting citizens from harm” means government must control all personal choices or none at all. That premise is false. It has never been the American legal tradition. The state has always drawn a distinction between competent adults making reversible personal choices and institutions performing irreversible acts on minors who lack full legal capacity. That distinction exists across medicine, contract law, labor law, and criminal law.
You also keep invoking libertarianism as if it denies the existence of professional duty. It does not. Libertarianism does not say doctors may amputate healthy organs of minors so long as a parent signs a form. It does not say institutions are absolved when consent is obtained through distorted standards, captured professional bodies, or politicized medicine. Consent does not erase duty. It never has.
Your police and gun control analogies are irrelevant. No one is arguing Congress must prevent all harm. I am arguing Congress has a duty to set boundaries when licensed institutions are allowed to permanently alter children. That duty exists precisely because parents can be pressured, misled, or overwhelmed and because minors lack capacity. The law already recognizes this everywhere else.
You keep collapsing responsibility downward because you refuse to acknowledge that power carries obligation. Parents can fail. Doctors can fail. Institutions can fail. And lawmakers can fail when they allow, subsidize, and protect a framework that produces foreseeable harm. The only group that never faces liability is the last one.
That is not a contradiction. It is the point. And repeating the same false equivalence will not change it.
Olly,
“ You keep asserting that “protecting citizens from harm” means government must control all personal choices or none at all. ”
YOU claimed Congress is responsible for keeping citizens from harm. You’re the one making the assertion without realizing what you’re implying.
A mask mandate IS government (Congress) protecting citizens from harm. Individual choices when they involve a LOT of people not wanting to wear masks or get vaccinated pose harm to the citizenry at large. Therefore YOUR claim it’s Congress’ responsibility to protect citizens from harm contradicts your “individual choice” argument.
“ You keep collapsing responsibility downward because you refuse to acknowledge that power carries obligation.”
And I pointed out that Libertarians and some conservatives disagree with your point because they believe government is not responsible for your poor choices. Responsibility lies ultimately with the parent or patient. Small government supporters make this argument all the time. You want to blame the doctors for not correcting a parent’s poor choice. That that they are obligated to defy the parent’s choice even after said parent signed legal forms attesting they have been informed of all risks and information regarding this decision to proceed with surgery.
Good. Send ‘em all to the poorhouse.
Why don’t we ever hear about these doctors performing these permanent mutilations on their own children?
Insurance covers it. That’s why health care is expensive. At some point the insurance industry will not cover sex changes.
Mutilation of children is terrible. We don’t allow children to make decisions about tattoos, or smoking, or drinking. Yet, we think life-changing surgeries or hormone treatments are fine. It’s disgusting.
What’s your opinion on circumcision?
I think if you grow up as a helmet, you’re not likely to envy the anteaters. But for a more extreme example, certainly the altos and sopranos of the old Vienna Boys Choir had cause for complaint.