SNP conference votes for 'informed consent model' for gender care

[ArabellaScott]

SNP conference has just voted to approve this motion:

'Conference recognises that the ICD-11 has removed Gender Dysphoria from its list of mental health conditions, and the move away from pathologizing trans identity this represents.
Conference also recognises the extreme waiting times and significant distress that needing to seek this outdated diagnosis imposes on trans people trying to access Gender Affirming Care.
Conference calls for Gender Affirming Care to be brought in line with all other models of healthcare for adults, and operate off of an informed consent model without additional need for a psychiatric diagnosis.
Conference further calls for additional training and support to be given to GPs and other healthcare practitioners to assist them with supporting their trans patients.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24555424.snp-members-vote-improve-access-gender-affirming-healthcare/

Here's someone from 'Out for Indy' talking about oestrogen and why it's 'humiliating and degrading' for a trans identifying male to access it, while apparently easy for 'non trans' women to access :

https://x.com/OutForIndy/status/1830327268104634811

'“Gender dysphoria is a remnant of a time in psychiatry when all LGBT+ people were thought of as diseased & defective When we weren’t seen as part of the rich & beautiful tapestry of human experience but as a problem to be solved; that has no place in modern psychiatric medicine”

I'm a bit confused. If GD is not a mental health problem then why does it need to be treated at all?

Oh and, re the question about a possible diagnosis, apparently it cost £500 for a Gender GP diagnosis, but the Scottish GP didn’t accept it as the doctor making the £500 diagnosis was in Hong Kong. It was on Twix this morning, but I don’t have access right now.

And they wonder why their party is on the point of collapse.

well they dont, do they? They think everything is fine and they just need a new, improved electorate. The speech was bizarre enough but weirder by far was the fact that, instead of being pelted with rotten fruit, the audience cheered him as though they had just heard the Gettysburg Address. Bonkers.

Who exactly are the people cheering in the background after that brave heart type speech from that clearly unwell person?? When you look at the pictures of the room it's mainly oaps in the audience. Do they understand what they are cheering for? It's just all so...odd. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Is this really who represents Scottish politics???

Oh dear. They're not going to be happy. 🤭

news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-government-accepts-findings-of-cass-report-on-gender-identity-healthcare-in-scotland

Maybe that gurning speech person will make another speech. From the first speech alone it's quite clear they need mental health support.

Conference calls for Gender Affirming Care to be brought in line with all other models of healthcare for adults, and operate off of an informed consent model without additional need for a psychiatric diagnosis

Well, this sounds positive, but I fear that my reading is not what is intended.

If Gender Affirming Care was brought in line with other models of healthcare, physical intervention would not be offered unless there was a good evidence base for doing so (so no hormones or surgery), instead psychotherapy would be offered.

Informed consent involves a patient being informed of all of the treatment options, their efficacy and the know, possible side effects - so they can make an informed decision about whether to opt for the treatment being offered. Of course, as with other areas of healthcare, only cost effective, NICE approved treatments would be offered.

If there is no condition/illness/disorder/dysfunction, there should be no need for treatment. I can get behind the idea that we should pathologise gender non conformity and gender differences - this means no need for hormones or surgery. Great!

Are they saying there wasn't informed consent before?!

Well whether they voted for it or not as of today for over 18s it's free hormones for anyone on the NHS Scotland who wants them from the GP on the basis of self id and it looks like genital surgery will be more readily available too

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/03/scottish-doctors-prescribe-hormones-patients-self-id-risks/

WTF?!?! 🙈🙈

GPs need to stand up against this.

Massive cuts coming yet anyone can get testosterone or estrogen on demand with no diagnosis of gender dysohoria.

When so many are having to wait years or are denied essential drugs/treament it's an utter disgrace that iatrogenic harm because of a lifestyle choice is to be offered on the NHS. 😡

Oh really?

Where are they recruiting all these genital mutilating surgeons from? How will the NHS afford the increase in insurance fees?

Interesting.

Well unless I'm mistaken all surgical mutilation of healthy body parts happens in England as there aren't any "qualified" to do the surgery up here so how that's going to work is anyone's guess

How does one become qualified in how to mutilate genitals when there is no one to train you how to do it properly within NHS training protocols?

Or do those protocols go out the window, and we just either hire from abroad with little quality control on training or do people just start doing it and hope they get It right? How does either of these options affect insurance premiums?

Or are the SNP actually being very cruel here in suggesting they can recruit mythical non existent people?

I'm curious.

Is that the case? Ritchie Herron (who is English) was operated on in Scotland via the NHS although his GU surgeon no longer practices (now deceased if I remember correctly)

To be honest I just don't think most people know what an "informed consent" model of care means in reality. People don't understand it often just means checking the patient legally has "capacity" and then reeling off a list of known and unknown risks, the patient agrees they have understood them (even if this is unlikely) and accepted them. And from there on it's on the patient.

Having "capacity" doesn't mean someone is qualified to make the medical decision or that they are in a good enough mental state to make the right decision for lifechanging medication and surgery.

But "informed consent" sounds so good.

"Conference calls for Gender Affirming Care to be brought in line with all other models of healthcare for adults, and operate off of an informed consent model without additional need for a psychiatric diagnosis."

What other models of healthcare operate on the basis of providing treatment for a medical condition that doesn't exist?

Surely if it's not gender dysphoria they're treating, the first step in bringing it in line with all other models of adult healthcare is to define the condition, its symptoms and the diagnostic procedure before spending public funds on its 'treatment'?

They are stigmatising mental illness by stating that psychiatric support is bad of unnecessary. Which is silly because we know that lots of people with gender distress also have mental health problems - they are more likely to be anxious, depressed, bi polar and other significant problems . So they need to be seen by a psychiatrist to manage these

Certainly the children who had mastectomies were sent to England to have the operations done.

www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-doctors-approved-breast-removal-for-51-trans-teenagers-qvkmz8r2c

I expect that male and female surgery, and chest and genital surgery, would be performed by different doctors from different specialisms. We might have some specialisms in Scotland but not others. Though I could be wrong, maybe we have a return to surgeons as medaeival-style general-purpose butchers!

Thanks for the link. It's painful to imagine girls being sent off for mastectomies before they've even finished developing physically or emotionally. I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a legal case yet.

(edited for odd format)

I think they're trying to say that psychiatric evaluation isn't necessary and that needing psychiatric support shouldn't rule out medical transition. Which is pretty bonkers in itself when you think about it.

"Informed consent" kind-of relates to the Neil Gaiman case. I listened to the Tortoise podcasts (I kept wanting to wash my hands while listening!) but one of the things I concluded was how conflicted people could feel. How some of the women could be sending one message to Neil Gaiman himself (adoring, willing, positive) and the complete opposite to their friends (exploited, disgusted, horrified) at the same time. And that both feelings could be genuine and intense. Similar to some of the things that Ritchie Herron has said about how he and others felt around transition, how he was posting positive things and seeking it out yet also experiencing so much doubt.

I don't know what "consent" means in either case. Apart from "you can't take me to court and win".

And what I'm trying to get to is how immoral it is to ignore the existence of conflicting feelings and to just take it for granted that people "know their own minds". They really, really don't!

And the people who are arguing for that are not themselves trans. The “allies” are the biggest zealots of them all.