The Economist: Europe Warns of Gender Care Dangers

This week, The Economist wrote as one of its cover stories that the question of medically intervening in the development of children with gender dysphoria is an opinion that splits along the Atlantic.

“Broadly speaking,” The Economist wrote, “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 article goes on to outline that the clinical evidence for treating gender dysphoric children and teenagers is vague, and there is growing concern that the harm may outweigh the benefits.

In the United States, proponents of medically intervening in a child’s development, or as it’s termed “gender-affirming care,” said the medical procedures would help prevent kids with gender dysphoria from committing suicide. The same notion is affirmed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and most U.S. medical bodies.

However, in Europe, medical programs in Britain, Finland, France, Norway, and Sweden have raised the alarm due to the “experimental” nature of the procedures. Likewise, doctors in such countries have urged the public to proceed with “great medical caution.”

“Treatments are supposed to be backed by a growing body of well-researched evidence that weighs the risks and benefits of intervention,” The Economist adds. “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.

“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 [National Health Service] 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,” The Economist concludes, “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.”