12 hours ago
What Has Medical Research Found on Gender Treatments for Trans Youth?
In Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, the chief justice made many references to the medical research on gender treatments for minors, arguing that the scientific uncertainty in the niche field justified Tennessee's ban.
'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,' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. He argued that these questions should be resolved by 'the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process.'
Countries across the world have grappled in recent years with thorny questions over the care for adolescents, which can include puberty-blocking drugs, hormones and, in rarer cases, surgeries. While the published medical evidence in support of such care is limited, many clinicians who provide these treatments and some families of transgender children say they can be beneficial and even lifesaving.
Systematic reviews commissioned by international health bodies have consistently found that the evidence of the benefits of the treatments is weak, as is the evidence on the potential harms. Long-term risks can include the loss of fertility and the possibility that adolescents may regret their decisions down the line.
As demand for the treatments has risen, countries have chosen different ways to respond. Health agencies in England, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have restricted the treatments to extreme cases or required medications to be prescribed only within clinical research. Medical groups drafting guidelines in Germany recently acknowledged the uncertain evidence but cautiously endorsed the treatments, citing the clinical consensus and stating that not treating patients was 'not a neutral option.'
In his majority opinion for the Court, Chief Roberts cited the changes in Europe as evidence of the uncertainty in the field.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
