Latest news with #AmericanAcademyofPaediatrics
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
As Maga camp rejoices, 10 things that transgenders lost in US court against Trump
US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors. While Maga rejoices in the ruling here are 10 ways the judgment affects trans people in the United States read more The US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors, which activists argued was a devastating loss for transgener rights in the country. The apex American court gave its ruling in the United States v Skrmetti, which was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care.. During the oral arguments last year, the plaintiffs, as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden, argued that Tennessee's law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As per the state law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Tennessee stated that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed 'experimental' medical treatment. During the Wednesday arguments, Conservative judges at the Supreme Court sided with Tennessee law. All six of the Supreme Court's conservative justices went on to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. Amid the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasised that the ruling was primarily based on the justices' finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,' Roberts wrote in his opinion. 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," he added. Activists argued that the ruling can turn out to be a major blow to trangender rights in the United States. What transgender people lost against Trump Expert and medical advice ignored: The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries) despite overwhelming evidence from major medical groups such as the American Academy of Paediatrics, which cites decades of research showing these treatments reduce gender dysphoria and suicide risks. Health crisis for trans youth: Denying access to medically recommended care risks worsening mental health outcomes, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts. Delayed treatments may also lead to irreversible physical changes (e.g., puberty progression) that exacerbate psychological distress. Societal stigma amplified: The ruling reinforces systemic discrimination, emboldening anti-trans policies in education, sports, and public spaces. Families may face social ostracisation, while advocacy groups warn of rising hate crimes and eroded community trust. Economic burden on families: Families in ban states may incur relocation costs to access care elsewhere. Health systems in supportive states could face strain, while bans may deter businesses and skilled workers from operating in restrictive regions, impacting local economies. Legal patchwork creates inequality: Over 20 states can now enforce bans, creating a fragmented system where care access depends on geography. This exacerbates socioeconomic disparities, as low-income families lack the resources to travel for treatments. Workforce and productivity loss: Untreated mental health issues among trans youth could reduce future workforce participation and productivity. States may face higher long-term healthcare costs from emergency mental health interventions. Trump's broader anti-trans agenda gets a boost: The ruling aligns with Trump-era policies restricting transgender military service, sports participation, and federal healthcare funding, framing trans rights as a cultural wedge issue despite scientific consensus. Medical community backlash: Doctors and hospitals in ban-states risk legal penalties for providing care, leading to clinician shortages in gender-affirming fields and reduced quality of care for all patients. Global repercussions: The decision may inspire similar bans worldwide, undermining global human rights efforts and international LGBTQ+ health collaborations. Youth autonomy undermined: The ruling dismisses trans youths' agency over their bodies, perpetuating societal narratives that marginalise their identities and limit their future opportunities in education and employment.
Euronews
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Euronews
US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee on gender affirming care for minors
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in a stunning setback to transgender rights. The justices' 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump's Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to Tennessee's. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,' Roberts wrote. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.' In a dissent for the court's three liberal justices that she summarised aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' The decision comes amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls' sports. The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. In addition, the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court fights continue. The president also signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female. The president of the American Academy of Paediatrics, Dr. Susan Kressly, said in a statement the organisation is 'unwavering' in its support of gender-affirming care and 'stands with paediatricians and families making health care decisions together and free from political interference.' Kressly said the Supreme Court's decision 'sets a dangerous precedent for legislative interference in the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship.' The justices acted a month after the United Kingdom's top court delivered a setback to transgender rights, ruling unanimously that the Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, like changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counselling services provided only to women. Five years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision remains unaffected by Wednesday's ruling. Emergency workers recovered more bodies on Wednesday from the rubble of a nine-story Kyiv apartment building destroyed by a Russian missile, bringing the death toll from the latest attack on the Ukrainian capital to 28. The building in Kyiv's Solomianskyi district took a direct hit and collapsed in what was the deadliest Russian attack on the city this year. Authorities said that 23 of those killed were inside. While sniffer dogs searched for buried victims, rescuers used cranes, excavators and even their hands to clear debris from the site. The attack overnight on Monday into Tuesday was part of a sweeping barrage as Russia once again sought to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences. More than 440 drones and 32 missiles were launched - one of the biggest bombardments on the capital since the war began in 2022. Russia has launched a summer offensive along parts of the roughly 1,000-kilometre frontline and has intensified long-range attacks that have struck urban residential areas. At the same time, US-led peace efforts have failed to gain traction, while Middle East tensions and US trade tariffs are diverting global focus away from Ukraine's calls for greater diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) says that Russia poses a direct threat to the bloc through acts of sabotage and cyberattacks, while its massive military spending suggests Moscow also plans to use the armed forces elsewhere in the future. 'Russia is already a direct threat to the European is a long-term plan for a long-term aggression. You don't spend that much on military if you do not plan to use it,' Kallas told EU lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, as she listed a series of Russian airspace violations, provocative military exercises, and attacks on energy grids, pipelines and undersea cables. Kallas noted that Russia is already spending more on defence than the EU's 27 nations combined, and this year will invest more 'on defence than its own health care, education and social policy combined.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said that Russia is producing as many weapons and ammunition in three months as the 32 allies together make in a year. He believes that Russia could be in a position to launch an attack on a NATO ally by the end of the decade. Concern is mounting in Europe that Russia could try to test NATO's Article 5 security guarantee, the pledge that an attack on any one of the allies would be met with a collective response from all 32. In 2021, NATO allies acknowledged that significant and cumulative cyberattacks might, in certain circumstances, also be considered an armed attack that could lead them to invoke Article 5, but so far no action has been taken.
Mint
20-05-2025
- Health
- Mint
What America has got wrong about gender medicine
FOR MANY Americans, the great tragedy of trans rights is the story of how Republican governors and state legislatures are stigmatising some of society's most put-upon people—all too often in a cynical search for votes. This newspaper shares their dismay at these vicious tactics. In a free society it is not the government's place to tell adults how to live and dress, which pronouns to use, or what to do with their bodies. However, nestled within that first tragedy appears to be a second—this time a tragedy of good intentions. On different sides of the Atlantic, medical experts have weighed the evidence for the treatment of gender-dysphoric children and teenagers, those who feel intense discomfort with their biological sex. This treatment is life-changing and can lead to infertility. Broadly speaking, the consensus in America is that medical intervention and gender affirmation are beneficial and should be more accessible. Across Europe several countries now believe that the evidence is lacking and such interventions should be used sparingly and need further study. The Europeans are right. The number of children and teenagers diagnosed with gender dysphoria in America has soared. One estimate found that there were over 42,000 new diagnoses in 2021, three times the count in 2017. Gender-affirming care, as America understands it, stipulates counselling, which can lead to puberty-blocking drugs and subsequently cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls and oestrogen for boys—used, by one estimate, in 10% of cases). Occasionally, there may be mastectomies and, very rarely in the under 18s, the construction of ersatz genitals from flaps of skin or pieces of bowel. The goal is to align the patient's body with the way that they think about themselves. Proponents say that the care is vital to the well-being of dysphoric children. Failure to provide it, they say, is transphobic, and risks patients killing themselves. The affirmative approach is supported by the American Academy of Paediatrics, and by most of the country's main medical bodies. Arrayed against those supporters are the medical systems of Britain, Finland, France, Norway and Sweden, all of which have raised the alarm, describing treatments as 'experimental" and urging doctors to proceed with 'great medical caution". There is growing concern that, if teenagers are offered this care too widely, the harms will outweigh the benefits. As we report in this week's briefing, one concern is that doctors have changed the safeguards built into the original treatment design, devised in the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, the typical patient was male, with a long history of dysphoria. Children and teenagers with psychological problems besides dysphoria were disqualified from treatment. These days most patients are adolescent girls. Their dysphoria may be relatively recent. Some are depressed, anxious or autistic, but mental illness is no longer a hard barrier to treatment. Do these patients respond to drugs and surgery in the same way? It is unclear. And that is because the clinical evidence for intervention in broader categories of adolescents is vague. A formal British review of the clinical evidence, prepared in 2020, found that almost all the studies in this area were of poor quality; one in Sweden came to similar conclusions. When researchers find benefits, the effects tend to be small. It is often impossible to conclude whether they are lasting, or how much the credit is down to drugs or counselling or both. Some older studies suggest that, left alone, most children will naturally grow out of their dysphoric feelings. The long-term effects of puberty-blockers remain unknown, though there are worries about brain development and decreasing bone density. Medical bodies build safeguards into their treatment protocols, but they vary. And in any case practitioners may ignore them. Whistle-blowers say that some children and teenagers are being put on puberty-blockers after only a cursory assessment. A growing number of 'detransitioners", who regret their treatment, say that they have been left scarred, infertile, with irreversibly altered appearances and were unhappy with how their dysphoria was treated. America's professional bodies acknowledge the science is low quality, but say they have a duty to alleviate patients' mental anguish. Some patients suffer regret in all medical procedures, from knee surgery to liposuction. And they observe that the most shocking allegations about poor treatment are only anecdotes. Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: 'There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care." Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium. Medical science is not supposed to work this way. Treatments are supposed to be backed by a growing body of well-researched evidence that weighs the risks and benefits of intervention. The responsibility is all the heavier when treatments are irreversible and the decisions about whether to go ahead are being taken by vulnerable adolescents and their anxious parents. What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain's NHS and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial. Ideally, American regulators would insist on trials, too. If the culture wars put that compromise out of reach, professional bodies should uphold their own protocols by welcoming whistle-blowers and advance science by calling on patients to be in trials. Sometimes, they will need to protest against illiberal laws. Above all, they should not add to the tragedy. For subscribers only: to see how we design each week's cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
NZ Herald
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- NZ Herald
How to make screen time good for your kids and even help them learn to talk
Beyond quantity, they also emphasise the quality of a child's engagement with digital media. Used in moderation, certain kinds of media can have educational and social benefits for children, and even contribute to language development. These tips may help parents structure and manage screen time more effectively. No 1: Choose high-quality content Parents can enhance their children's screen-time value by choosing high-quality media – that is, content with educational benefits. PBS Kids has many popular shows, from Nature Cat to Sid the Science Kid, that would qualify as educational. Two other elements contribute to the quality of screen time. First, screen content should be age-appropriate – that is, parents should choose shows, apps and games that are specifically designed for young children. Using a resource such as Common Sense Media allows parents to check recommended ages for television shows, movies and apps. Second, parents can look for shows that use evidence-based educational techniques, such as participatory cues. That's when characters in shows break the 'third wall' by directly talking to their young audience to prompt reflection, action or response. Research shows that children learn new words better when a show has participatory cues – perhaps because it encourages active engagement rather than passive viewing. Many classic, high-quality television show s for young children feature participatory cues, including Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Dora the Explorer, Go Diego Go! and Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. No 2: Join in on screen time The American Academy of Paediatrics recommends that parents and children watch media together whenever possible. Discover more This recommendation is based on the evidence that increased screen media use can reduce parent-child conversation. This, in turn, can affect language development. Intentionally discussing media content with children increases language exposure during screen time. Parents may find the following joint media engagement strategies useful: Press pause and ask questions. Point out basic concepts, such as letters and colours. Model more advanced language using a 'think aloud' approach, such as, 'That surprised me! I wonder what will happen next?' No 3: Connect what's on screen to real life Learning from media is challenging for young children because their brains struggle to transfer information and ideas from screens to the real world. Children learn more from screen media, research shows, when the content connects to their real-life experiences. To maximise the benefits of screen time, parents can help children connect what they are viewing with experiences they've had. For example, while watching content together, a parent might say, 'They're going to the zoo. Do you remember what we saw when we went to the zoo?' This approach promotes language development and cognitive skills, including attention and memory. Children learn better with repeated exposure to words, so selecting media that relates to a child's real-life experiences can help reinforce new vocabulary. No 4: Enjoy screen-free times Ensuring that a child's day is filled with varied experiences, including periods that don't involve screens, increases language exposure in children's daily routines. Two ideal screen-free times are mealtimes and bedtime. Mealtimes present opportunities for back-and-forth conversation with children, exposing them to a lot of language. Additionally, bedtime should be screen-free, as using screens near bedtime or having a TV in children's bedrooms disrupts sleep. Alternatively, devoting bedtime to reading children's books accomplishes the dual goals of helping children wind down and creating a language-rich routine. Having additional screen-free, one-on-one, parent-child play for at least 10 minutes at some other point in the day is good for young children. Parents can maximise the benefits of one-on-one play by letting their children decide what and how to play. A parent's role here is to follow their child's lead, play along, give their child their full attention – so no phones for mum or dad, either – and provide language enrichment. They can do this by labelling toys, pointing out shapes, colours and sizes. It can also be done by describing activities – 'You're rolling the car across the floor' – and responding when their child speaks. Parent-child playtime is also a great opportunity to extend interests from screen time. Including toys of your child's favourite characters from the shows or movies they love in playtime transforms that enjoyment from screen time into learning.
South China Morning Post
02-03-2025
- Health
- South China Morning Post
Why doctors worry about the rise in US children using melatonin to sleep
A 2023 study found that nearly one in five US children under the age of 14 regularly used medicine to help them sleep. This medication is called melatonin. About six per cent of preschoolers aged one to four were taking the sleep medicine. Researchers are concerned about this number. Melatonin is a hormone that controls when we sleep and wake up. Our bodies naturally make melatonin. However, melatonin medicine is not as closely monitored as other sleep medicines. There isn't much information on how this affects children in the long run. Dr Cora Collette Breuner is a professor of paediatrics at the University of Washington. 'It is terrifying to me that this amount of an unregulated product is being utilised,' Breuner said. More people are using melatonin these days. Unfortunately, this has led to a big increase in the number of children with melatonin poisoning. Signs of melatonin poisoning include an upset stomach, vomiting, diarrhoea and feeling tired all the time. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported that from 2012 to 2021, cases of children under five accidentally having too much melatonin increased by over 500 per cent. Poison control centres recorded 260,435 of these cases. The biggest increase was during the Covid-19 pandemic. Doctors suggest other ways to help children and adults fall asleep without using melatonin (see graphic). The American Academy of Paediatrics said that melatonin should only be used for a short time and under a doctor's supervision.
