#healthcare experts and | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

coochiequeens · 1 month

Text

Yes it's form a conservative source. But it's one of the few articles that doesn't focus on reproductive purchasers who felt entitled to a child.

by Emma Waters, @EMLWATERS

Olivia Maurel was 30 years old when an ancestry DNA test confirmed what she had known all along: she is the product of a costly commercial surrogacy contract. In Olivia’s case, the woman that her parents paid to gestate and birth Olivia is also her biological mother.

In a recent article with Daily Mail, Olivia shared how “becoming a parent myself — entirely naturally, in my mid-20s — has only crystallized my view. The sacred bond between mother and baby is, I feel, something that should never be tampered with.” After going viral for her testimony before the parliament of the Czech Republic, Olivia now campaigns for the universal abolition of surrogacy.

In the United States, only three states prohibit or do not enforce commercial surrogacy contracts. One of the states, Michigan, is poised to overturn their ban on surrogacy-for-pay through a nine-bill “Access to Fertility Healthcare Package.” Legislators are tying their efforts to the national conversation on in vitro fertilization in hopes of garnering additional support. I detail the concerns with this legislation in detail here, but suffice it to say it undermines motherhood by reducing the intimate relationship between a woman and the child she carries to a highly-lucrative rental agreement.

Several well-respected researchers and pundits claim that surrogacy does not harm children. Yet we know very little about its long-term impact on a child’s psychological well-being.

Most of those who assert that surrogacy is psychologically harmless rely on a longitudinal study by Susan Golombok, Professor Emerita of Family Research, and former Director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge. She is the author of We Are Family (2020), a synthesis of 40 years of research on non-traditional family structures—same-sex, single parent by choice, and the use of all forms of assisted reproductive technology, including third-party conception. She concludes that such arrangements pose no additional harm and can benefit children.

Professor Golombok’s “Families Created Through Surrogacy” study began in 2003 and assessed parental and child psychological adjustment at ages 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and 14. The impact of this single longitudinal study on both public opinion and policy cannot be overstated. To date, it is the only study that specifically examines the surrogate-born child’s psychological adjustment, as well as the only study to do so over an extended period. It is also the only research on child psychological well-being that policymakers in New York used to argue for the legalization of commercial surrogacy.

Professor Golombok’s sample of surrogacy families comes from the General Register Office of the United Kingdom for National Statistics (ONS) and from the UK’s “Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy” (COTS) agency. The original sample included 42 surrogate-born children but declined to a mere 28 children by age 14. The study relied on a group of families formed through egg donation and children born of natural conception to serve as the comparison groups.

With such a small sample size, and some families participating inconsistently year-to-year, the study itself runs the risk of selection bias and non-representative outcomes. The study lumps both children born through gestational surrogacy and traditional surrogacy together, too. This means some surrogates are both the genetic mother and the child's gestational mother.

Additionally, only altruistic surrogacy is legal in the UK, so these arrangements do not involve surrogates who legally receive an additional sum of money, beyond generous reimbursements. For context, surrogacy-for-pay brings in an additional $25,000 to $70,000 in the United States, which may affect how a child views his or her conception, gestation, and birth.

In each study, the scholars rely on the mother’s own assessment of the child’s well-being. It is not until age 14 when scholars begin to directly ask children questions to assess their self-esteem.

Overall, Professor Golombok concludes that children born from surrogacy agreements of any sort do as well, if not better, psychologically than their natural-born peers.

For ages 1, 2, and 3, Professor Golombok finds that parents in surrogacy families showed “greater warmth and attachment-related behavior” than natural-conception parents. One explanation for this, as Professor Golombok’s notes, is that “parents of children born in this way [may] make a greater attempt than parents of naturally conceived children to present their families in the best possible light.” Such a bias seems likely, given that parents may feel the subconscious desire to justify their uncommon path to parenthood.

By age 7, both surrogate-born children and donor-conceived children in the control group were doing noticeably worse than their natural-born counterparts. This is the point when many children learned of their biological or gestational origins. The scholars note that this corresponds with adoption literature as the period in a child’s life when they begin to comprehend the loss of one or both biological parents. What goes unnoted, however, is that unlike adoption, surrogacy is the intentional creation of a child for the express purpose of removing the child from his or her gestational and/or biological parent(s).

Beginning at age 10, scholars report that the child’s psychological adjustment returns to a relatively normal state compared to the natural-born children, but the study itself reports little data compared to previous papers. By age 14, when the study concludes, the remaining 28 children seem to fare about the same as natural-born children, despite slightly more psychological problems reported.

Despite these methodological limitations, Professor Golombok’s data from this longitudinal study remains the basis of child psychological adjustment research on surrogacy. Examples of this may be found in prominent pieces such as Vanessa Brown Calder's review of surrogacy at the Cato Institute or Cremieux Recueil's widely shared Substack with Aporia Magazine. Their conclusions that surrogacy confers “no harm” to the psychological well-being of the child are premature, to say the least.

In Calder’s article, she cites three studies in her discussion on the psychological well-being of surrogate-born children. A quick review of each study shows that these authors rely solely on Professor Golombok’s longitudinal study data to draw their conclusions.

In Recueil’s Substack, "Surrogacy: Looking for Harm," he primarily relies on Golombok’s work to claim that “psychological harm appears to be minimal.” Again, this statement is premature and formed on limited data primarily from her longitudinal study. The other five citations in the “Psychological Outcomes for Kids” section tell us little about the psychological well-being of surrogate-born children.

Recueil twice cites “Are the Children Alright? A Systematic Review of Psychological Adjustment of Children Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technologies,” from 2022. Of the 11 studies that examine the intersection between surrogacy and child psychological outcomes, they fall into three categories:

the longitudinal study by Professor Golombok

child outcomes compared with other children born from assisted reproductive technology, not compared with natural-born children

studies that examine the impact of non-traditional parenting types, such as lesbian mothers or gay fathers, on the well-being of the child. The impact of surrogacy is not directly assessed; it is simply mentioned as a requirement for male-to-male family formation. Of these three categories, the only studies that directly address the claims that Recueil makes are the research of Professor Golombok, which he already cited before these additional studies.

Hence, the widespread claim that surrogacy does not harm the psychological well-being of children primarily relies on a single longitudinal study of 42-to-28 surrogate-born children by the intended mother’s own assessment. That’s it.

This isn’t to say we should discard Professor Golombok’s study. But honest scholars and lawmakers should be far more modest in claiming that surrogacy does not harm the psychological well-being of children.

The most accurate conclusion regarding the psychological adjustment of surrogate-born children is that we do not have enough data to draw a conclusion either way, especially not in favor of surrogacy itself. When the well-being of children is at stake, lawmakers and researchers should employ the utmost scrutiny before advocating for any form of childbearing.

Children rightly desire to please their parents, and there are few conversations more complicated than questioning the method one’s parents chose to bring one into the world. There is reason to believe that many surrogate-born children will not have the emotional or mental maturity to understand their conception and gestation until they are much older.

There is a huge difference between no harm and no known harm. Regardless of one’s stance on surrogacy, we should be able to agree that we need more data and reporting requirements to enable researchers to assess the impact of surrogacy contracts on the well-being of children. In my view, a single six-part longitudinal study does not justify this practice.

Emma Waters is a Senior Research Associate for the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion and Family at The Heritage Foundation.

#Anti surrogacy sunday #Surrogacy exploits women #Babies are not commodities #Surrogacy is human trafficking #michigan #Access to Fertility Healthcare Package #General Register Office of the United Kingdom for National Statistics (ONS)#Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy” (COTS)#Surrogacy is the intentional creation of a child for the express purpose of removing the child from his or her gestational and/or biologica #Small sample size for a study #The results are based on answers given by a biased parent #We need more studies before experts can say weather or not surrogacy impacts children #There is a huge difference between no harm and no known harm

14 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 5 months

Text

By: Leor Sapri

Published: Dec 15, 2023

The core question in lawsuits over state-level age restrictions on “gender-affirming care” or former patients suing their providers for fraud or malpractice is whether sex-trait modification is an evidence-based and ethical medical practice. Recognizing the limits of their own knowledge on such matters, judges have turned to expert witnesses to help them understand the key issues at play. But since both sides in these legal contests appoint expert witnesses to back their claims (typically medical doctors and mental-health professionals), judges must determine which are more credible.

A recent exchange between Moti Gorin, an associate professor of philosophy and bioethicist at Colorado State University, and Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender activist and cyberlaw instructor at Harvard Law School, provides crucial insight into how these questions bear on the outcome of lawsuits over gender medicine. In a paper titled “The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry,” published earlier this year in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Caraballo argues that judges should disregard the opinions of medical professionals who testify on behalf of states seeking to restrict “gender-affirming care.” In a newly published letter to the editor in the same journal, Gorin shows the fatal flaws in Caraballo’s arguments. (The journal also gave Caraballo the chance to respond to Gorin.)

Caraballo devotes considerable space to maligning experts and organizations skeptical or critical of “gender-affirming care” as being driven by “anti-transgender” animus. As Gorin points out, these are

serious allegations, directed at named entities and individuals, and presented not on a social media platform or in the opening statement of an attorney engaged in courtroom advocacy but in the pages of a peer-reviewed, academic journal. One should therefore expect strong evidence in support of such allegations, in keeping with the usual norms of academic publishing. Those norms require, inter alia, that easily-verifiable factual claims be true, that accurate and otherwise adequate citations be provided, that the author avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language, and so on.

Caraballo provides zero evidence for these accusations. For example, Caraballo describes Stephen Levine, a professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine with five decades of clinical experience treating gender dysphoric patients, as “one of the most prolific anti-transgender medical expert [sic] in the country” and claims that he “has not published peer-reviewed research in the relevant field.” As Gorin observes, however, “It is easy to confirm that this claim is plainly false.” Levine, who chaired the HBIGDA’s (now WPATH) Fifth Standards of Care and served on the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders, has many peer-reviewed publications in the field, including landmark papers like “The Myth of ‘Reliable Research’” that touch directly on the evidence base for pediatric gender medicine.

Gorin provides other examples of blatant falsehoods in Caraballo’s paper, raising the question of how the Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics could allow such defamatory statements to be made in its pages without even minimal corroboration. As Gorin later explained on X, academic publishing relies on a certain degree of trust. Editors and reviewers assume that scholars will not, for instance, blatantly mischaracterize sources they cite, as Caraballo appears to have done. Recently, a prominent physician argued that the scandal of pediatric “gender-affirming care” was made possible due to a “broken chain of trust” within the medical and scientific establishment, with activist clinicians and researchers exploiting the chains of trust built up over generations by their professional forebearers. That physician is Stephen Levine.

No less embarrassing for Caraballo than the many factual errors in the original article is Caraballo’s apparent misunderstanding of the rules of evidence in adjudication. Here, Gorin takes Caraballo to task on the author's own turf and shows a superior grasp of the issues.

First, some context. Courts are generally a bad forum in which to settle scientific debates. Among other problems, judges are not subject-area experts and have little time to master the nuances of scientific controversies; they must inevitably decide between competing claims of subject-area experts. By definition, such contests require non-experts to substitute their own judgment for that of at least one expert—a scenario that can easily undermine the judge’s credibility in the eyes of scientific critics.

In the 1923 case Frye v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals opined that it was hard to determine when a “scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages,” and that, in order to do so, judges should consider whether a scientific principle or discovery has “gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

In 1975, Congress adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 states, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Rule 702 supersedes the Frye test of “general acceptance." The Court laid out four criteria to guide judges in their assessment of the reliability of expert testimony:

1. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; 2. The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 3. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 4. The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

It’s easy to see how these doctrinal issues bear directly on the current debate over “gender-affirming care.” When advocates of gender-affirming care maintain that these controversial procedures are evidence-based, they cite the consensus of professional medical associations. Critics point out that this consensus is manufactured and enforced through suppression of contrary viewpoints. They point out that consensus-based medicine is not necessarily evidence-based medicine.

Caraballo’s position is that expert testimony from the likes of Levine and the psychologist James Cantor—author of the definitive, peer-reviewed fact-check of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on “gender-affirming care”—should be discounted on the grounds that Levine and Cantor do not directly provide “gender-affirming” medical treatments to minors and that they operate outside the consensus of U.S. medical associations.

Regarding the first claim, if clinicians do not approve minors for puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries, that might be because they don’t believe that these interventions are evidence-based and ethical. Moreover, as Cantor has explained in expert witness testimony, the expertise of clinicians is different from that of scientists. The clinician’s expertise “regards applying general principles to the care of an individual patient and the unique features of that case.” The scientist’s expertise “is the reverse, accumulating information about many individual cases and identifying the generalizable principles that may be applied to all cases.” Accordingly, Cantor writes, “In legal matters, the most familiar situation pertains to whether a given clinician correctly employed relevant clinical standards. Often, it is other clinicians who practice in that field who will be best equipped to speak to that question. When it is the clinical standards that are themselves in question, however, it is the experts in the assessment of scientific studies who are the relevant experts.” For good reason, Caraballo’s criterion—that a doctor must practice a type of intervention in order to qualify as an expert in the evidence base for that intervention—is neither mentioned nor implied in the Daubert standards.

Not just that, but clinicians who practice “gender-affirming care” are likely to find themselves in intellectual, professional, and financial conflicts of interest, which may produce confirmation bias and impair their ability to dispassionately assess the evidence for the care they provide.

In short, Caraballo’s characterization of who counts as an expert is a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Caraballo conveniently defines as “experts” only those who practice, and by implication agree with, “gender-affirming care” for kids. It would be as if we agreed to define only clinicians who practice lobotomy as “experts” on whether lobotomy is an evidence-based practice.

As for Caraballo’s second point, about “anti-transgender” experts being outside the consensus in the field, Gorin points out that, under Daubert, this should not disqualify the opinions of these experts. To recall, the court in Daubert explicitlyrejected the “general acceptance” standard in Frye as a prerequisite for determining the reliability of testimony. “It is easy to see why ‘general acceptance’ is too strict a requirement,” writes Gorin. “It would exclude from the start expert testimony that, despite being inconsistent with generally-held opinion or consensus, proves to be consistent with the truth.” Commitment to science means above all commitment to the scientific method. As the Court put it in Daubert, “The focus . . . must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.”

Caraballo’s typo-riddled response to Gorin’s criticism complains that he is “hyper fixat[ed] on minor errors rather than the broader argument.” (In fact, Gorin’s examples of Caraballo’s factual errors go to the heart of Caraballo’s thesis that the experts in question are driven by animus rather than good-faith disagreement with the prevailing consensus.) Caraballo then resorts to more mudslinging and name-calling, for instance characterizing Levine as a “conversion therapist” because he uses exploratory therapy for his pediatric patients rather than automatically “affirming” their self-diagnosed “gender identity” as permanent and eligible for hormonal treatments. To support the accusation, Caraballo cites a paper by a transgender bioethicist who opposes “gatekeeping” for drugs and surgeries on the grounds that teenagers should have the right to turn their bodies into “gendered art pieces.”

Caraballo then continues to impugn the motives of “anti-transgender” expert witnesses by claiming that they are paid for their work—an unremarkable observation and one that conveniently ignores the fact that experts on the other side are also paid. For example, Jack Turban is paid up to $400 per hour to testify against state age-restriction laws. (It was money well spent: Turban revealed that he does not understand the basics of evidence-based medicine.)

Speaking of ulterior motives: in a footnote, Caraballo discloses that “these witnesses provided a report that impacted my ability to access care when I visit family in Florida. I can no longer obtain refills there legally due to restrictions placed on adult care. Additionally, my care in Massachusetts has been severely affected by the large influx of trans people fleeing states such as Florida. While this may be an elective academic indulgence for Gorin, this affects my healthcare directly.”

Caraballo ends by wondering, “Why should gender affirming care be considered differently where non-practitioners of a field testify on the relevant standards, they themselves do not practice?”

The answer is simple: those who provide irreversible, sterilizing, and often disfiguring “treatments” to kids on the belief that these young people were “born in the wrong body” are ideologues who need to be reined in by their more professional colleagues. For Caraballo, apparently, only blood-letters should testify on the merits of blood-letting.

When activists get desperate, their lies get more egregious.

Caraballo needs to return his law degree. He's dangerously unqualified.

#Leor Sapir #Alejandra Caraballo #Moti Gorin #evidence based medicine #gender ideology #queer theory #fallacies #logical fallacies #medical malpractice #medical scandal #medical corruption #gender affirming care #gender affirming healthcare #affirmation model #expert testimony #religion is a mental illness

7 notes · View notes

canichangemyblogname · 7 months

Text

Hey, so— leave random Jewish people alone. They have nothing to do with the Israeli Occupying Force or the Israeli Government.

The only reason you’re demanding their opinions on what’s happening in Palestine is anti-semitism. These interactions are built on the assumption that if you’re Jewish, then you’re a Zionist, and that is false. The random Jewish people you’re harassing aren’t experts on foreign policy in the war on terror and why it has failed. Going up to random Jewish people and demanding to know if they condemn Israel’s treatment of Palestinians would be like walking up to a random Muslim person and demanding to know if they condemn Iran’s treatment of pro-democracy protesters. They have nothing to do with the actions of a foreign government.

Stop assuming that Jewish = Israeli or Jewish = Zionist.

#And then y’all are getting mad #when some of them have bad takes on a subject they aren’t experts in and aren’t informed about #it’s like asking an Englishman about American immigration policy b/c he’s a man and there are men in the US #or asking a chiropractor about a vaccine’s side-effects b/c they’re also—technically— in the healthcare industry #or asking a US American about the history of Panama between 1900-1960 b/c they also live in the Americas #you’re not going to get the answer you want #AND YOU KNOW THAT #that’s why you’re asking #it’s bait. that you then use to justify harassing them #stop asking. you aren’t asking in good faith #you’re asking just to see if you can catch someone lacking #you’re asking under anti-Semitic pretenses

8 notes · View notes

godsprettiestprincess · 7 months

Text

Nicks natural habitat is facedown in his wife’s bosom and removing him from this environment is completely irresponsible pet ownership. If you’re going to house a Nick you need to provide both wife and breasts otherwise you are at best neglecting him and risking all kinds of health issues (depression, violent outbursts, etc)

#a large comfortable bed that can be fashioned into a nest if desired and proper healthcare (anxiety meds cockcage etc)#are also considered necessary for responsible ownership by leading experts #ramsey barks #nick

8 notes · View notes

bitchfitch · 10 months

Text

You know, in the past I have given my mother shit about her primary response to massive stress being to put her head down and work herself to the bone at a project. but like over the last few months I've come to realize that is also My primary stress response.

Which means I can't complain about it anymore, and I Double can't complain bc when She puts her head down and works she does shit like gets a doctorate and modernizes the way the medical community in several Texas towns respond to hurricanes. When I do it I just write tens of thousands of words of fanfiction.

#my mother responding to stress : I have become an expert in trans healthcare and now help draft pro trans legislation and am regularly #invited to give talks on community outreach and how to make medical offices in under served areas Work on a practical and financial level #me responding to stress: I am so fuckimg itchy and im banging my two dolls together to make them kiss #anyways both my grandparents are in the hospital now.

19 notes · View notes

healthgurus0 · 2 months

Text

Understanding Bupropion HCl: Uses, Side Effects, and More

Introduction:

In the realm of mental health treatments, Bupropion HCl stands out as a valuable tool for managing depression. This medication operates by restoring the delicate balance of certain natural chemicals in the brain, namely dopamine and norepinephrine.

How to Use Bupropion HCl:

To make the most of Bupropion HCl, it's essential to adhere to proper usage guidelines. Your journey with this medication begins with a thorough read of the Patient Information Leaflet and Medication Guide, readily available from your pharmacist. Whether taken with or without food, the dosage is typically three times daily, with intervals of at least six hours to reduce the risk of seizures. It's crucial not to alter the tablet's form before consumption, as advised by the manufacturer. However, always defer to your doctor's instructions regarding administration.

Side Effects and Precautions:

Like any medication, Bupropion HCl may entail side effects, including nausea, headaches, or dry mouth. Should these persist or worsen, prompt consultation with your healthcare provider is recommended. Moreover, vigilance is key in monitoring blood pressure levels due to potential increases associated with this medication. While serious side effects are rare, it's vital to seek immediate medical attention if experiencing chest pain, fainting, or seizures. Additionally, individuals with a history of certain conditions, such as seizures or psychiatric disorders, should exercise caution and disclose relevant medical information to their healthcare provider before initiating treatment.

Warnings and Interactions:

Antidepressants like Bupropion HCl carry profound benefits but necessitate careful consideration of potential risks. Notably, individuals under 25 may experience new or exacerbated depressive symptoms, underscoring the importance of ongoing dialogue with healthcare professionals. Furthermore, cautiousness is advised when combining Bupropion HCl with other medications, as certain drug interactions can occur. Notably, MAO inhibitors should be avoided concurrently with Bupropion HCl, as this combination may lead to severe complications.

Conclusion:

In essence, Bupropion HCl offers a promising avenue for managing depression and related conditions. By adhering to prescribed usage guidelines, remaining vigilant for potential side effects, and maintaining open communication with healthcare providers, individuals can navigate their treatment journey with confidence and optimize therapeutic outcomes.

#health #health & fitness #health and wellness #health tips #healthcare #healthy diet #healthy recipes #healthyeating #healthyfood #healthylifestyle #meditation #medicine #experts agree—these are the trendiest haircuts to try this winter #trending #public health #mental health #i need to lose this weight

4 notes · View notes