The job of medical doctors is to take proper care of their patient, not to engage in social justice nonsense that does nothing but expand government power and destroy civil liberties. Yet we are seeing the SWJ movement spread into that profession as well, and the consequences will certainly be dire.
For the past two years or so, transgenderism has been at the forefront of the SJW movement, and its adherents have pushed for all sorts of proposals to “protect” these people from allegedly being oppressed because of their “gender identity.”
So what’s coming down the pike? Well, the world-wide standards to which doctors must adhere are being altered to cater to transgender patients’ desires, rather than their actual health (treating them for severe mental illness). The latest change comes to the the World Medical Association’s Revised Declaration of Geneva: A Modern-Day Physician’s Pledge, the successor to the original Hippocratic Oath.
The change to this declaration reads: “I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient.”
It’s an ostensibly innocuous statement; after all, who would oppose doctors respecting their patients’ own autonomy and dignity? Well, when coupled with other changes recently made, the problematic nature of the change is reveled, as The Libertarian Republic reports.
In 2015 the WMA created new guidelines for physicians that declared that gender incongruence “is not a medical disorder,” a claim many physicians contest. The guidelines also stated that individuals have a right to determine their own gender and that medical assistance should be provided for any individuals experiencing gender incongruence.
Jon Miltimore, the author of the report, reached out to the WMA, and asked if doctors must respect the autonomy and dignity of patients who identify as transgender.
“The answer to your question is yes,” said Nigel Duncan, the spokesman for WMA.
No sanctions are recommended for physicians who do not comply, Duncan said, noting that punitive measures would naturally fall under the province of “national regulatory bodies.”
Yet medical ethicists say that does not mean there is no cause for concern.
Thomas S. Huddle, a physician and Professor of Medicine at the University of Alabama, stated that “The immediate practical implications are likely to be few in the absence of some sort of punishment for not toeing the line. The longer term practical implications of a changing willingness of professional organizations and society more generally to tolerate physician conscientious objection to contested treatments are, of course, much more momentous.”
As Miltimore notes, as the medical field has become increasingly politicized over the past several decades, doctors have frequently found themselves being forced to provide services to which they object. Indeed, transgenderism may be the next area of treatment which doctors may be forced into, despite strong objections.
“Gender transition is joining that group,” Huddle further elaborated. “As medicine retreats from being a private relationship between patients and physicians, it’s going to be much harder to solve these types of questions.”
Indeed, especially in children this may become particularly contentious. There are an increasing number of children who are “coming out as transgender” (though often because their parents are utterly deranged and are forcing it onto them).
There may be times during a child’s development where he or she suffers from a brief period of gender dysphoria, but what that child needs is reinforcement of the truth of their own biology, not morally reprehensible forced transgenderism that is nothing but child abuse, according to the American College of Pediatricians.
Will doctors be forced to participate with parents in child abuse? If the WMA and medical profession at large continues its march toward SJW hysteria, don’t put it out of the question.