New Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Their Pretend Sex

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Abysha

As i said, the here and Now matters to people because they're still experiencing it.

After Death do you believe you'll be 'somewhere' or 'go' somewhere? Does it matter to you? Does it not matter to you?

Good lord...

are you really doing this right now? You start off saying something totally uninformed and then walk it back, claiming existential enlightenment and some species of nihilism?

And yeah, I do believe I'll go "somewhere" after my body is done.

a reply to: awareness10

It was a serious question. No mind game. People always claim that they are being forced to do sucn and such by LGBT. But what exactly is it that they are being forced to do? Nobody have ever given a straight answer.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Abysha

Get What Abysha, that because the 2% of the Planet must force their agenda using a psycho president to do it onto the 98% they're called out as being Anti or Phobic or just big Meanies 'wahhhhhh' get over yourself.

There's nothing to GET.

Do you preach this hard in the "illuminati", "elite", (1%), (TPTB) threads? Where is your outrage and energy regarding the true "1%" you should be worried about. As Abysha already pointed out...

Where is everybody's sense of academia? You guys can believe in ghosts and aliens and holograms knocking down buildings... but an actual condition that causes your brain to express itself as one gender but your body another while in the womb? That's too far?! That's where you all draw the line?

Jesus, you guys are really disappointing me.

Really guys...really?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You're the one who called me a child. So it's fair play.

Technically I said you were not an adult, then acting like a juvenile. That leaves room for adolescence, which is actually what I think of most libs, trapped in teenage naivete. I've seen how true children type on keyboards, and you are at least mostly coherent

So anyway as for the rest? Apparently you refuse to give up the fact that the claim you and the article have made is NOT in the rule. And you talk about juvenile? I thought you were growing up. Well at least you read the rule which is a big step for you.

Ambulance-chasing lawyers. LMAO!!! You're getting really pathetic.

Apparently you don't see how legal verbiage gets twisted.

Oh and (drink)

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Apparently you don't see how legal verbiage gets twisted.

You are, of course, referring to your OP.
Right?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: awareness10

It was a serious question. No mind game. People always claim that they are being forced to do sucn and such by LGBT. But what exactly is it that they are being forced to do? Nobody have ever given a straight answer.

Apparently they will be forced to ignore decades of science and medical training/knowledge or else be sued.

Anyways, peace out. Good night everyone.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I suppose we could create a drinking game out of you. That would be fun. We've done that with far right Foxtards on Fox News comment sections. It's hilarious.

If you're really a troll then you are doing a good job.

And FYI calling others juvenile or a child destroys your credibility. And it's sad that you actually think you have made a good argument but so far you hadn't done so. Sad that you can't even see that we have debunked you and your article many times IN YOUR OWN thread!

But anyway I have hope for you since you finally took the courage to read the rule.

'Miss' you are delusional because you think you are a man. I recommend you get psychological help you need. Because there is zero evolutionary reasons for you to think you are a different gender

a reply to: thinline

Perhaps you should read something from someone:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm sorry... you have prostate cancer but you think you are a woman. Therefore your doctor may not be able to treat you or refer you to a men's health specialist. Not without threat of being sued, anyway...

thefederalist.com...

On the same day President Barack Obama announced his controversial transgender school bathroom policy last month, a somewhat more sinister mandate was finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with consequences for health care providers, insurance companies, and American taxpayers.

The rule contains an explicit definition of gender identity that states a person can claim to be male, female, neither, both, or some combination of the two, said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation.

...

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Insanity. There is no other word.

For a doctor to perform his or her job correctly, they need to deal in absolute truths. They need to use their judgement. Absurd does not begin to describe this regulation of the medical profession.

The regulations provide an example of how a doctor could discriminate against a transgender patient, Severino said. If two people are both candidates for a hysterectomy, one a woman with uterine cancer and the other a woman who wants fewer woman parts to look more like a man but is otherwise perfectly healthy, the doctor could be found to be discriminating against the second woman by choosing to treat the woman with cancer instead. The rule states all the second woman would need to attempt to force the surgeon to perform an elective hysterectomy is a note from a psychologist affirming her desire to become a man, Severino said.

...

Among other things, it notes the regulations could open health-care professionals and insurers to extensive legal liability if they decline to provide or pay for sex transition treatments, even if they are deemed medically unnecessary or unwise.

...

Unlike some mandates associated with Obamacare, this rule provides no provision or safeguard for religious persons or providers. A Catholic hospital system that tries to adhere to Roman Catholic teaching about humans being either male or female by refusing to perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman who wants to become a man may be held in violation, Kacsmaryk said, because there are no exceptions for religious institutions in this rule. The only option is to sue, as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor did over Obamacare’s requirement that employers pay for employees’ abortifacients.

Oh boy... ANOTHER transgender bashing thread. People keep posting how they're so tired of having GLBT stuff shoved down their throats, but it's always based on posts from the "anti" crowd.

Do you really want to see GLBT threads stop? STOP POSTING THEM.

To make the assertions found in this article is truly absurd, but what do you expect from a religious nutcase whose writings this year have all revolved around either the insanity of transgender people, the need to contain GLBT issues, or the tired whining about how we need to focus on "religious freedom."

Of course, The Federalist article doesn't quote directly from the Final Rule issued ... because it doesn't say what they wan it to say ...

Here is from the relevant portion (§ 92.206) :

In § 92.206, we proposed that covered entities be required to provide individuals equal access to their health programs or activities without discrimination on the basis of sex and to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity. We proposed that this provision applies to all covered health programs and activities, and prohibits, among other forms of adverse treatment, the discriminatory denial of access to facilities administered by a covered entity. We noted that this proposed approach is consistent with the principle that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and that failure to treat individuals in accordance with their gender identity may constitute prohibited discrimination.

So what the ruling actually says, is that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

We proposed one limited exception to the requirement that covered entities treat individuals consistent with their gender identity: That a covered entity may not deny or limit health services that are ordinarily or exclusively available to individuals of one gender based on the fact that the individual's sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded in a medical record or by a health insurance plan is different from the one to which such health services are ordinarily or exclusively available. For example, a covered entity may not deny, based on an individual's identification as a transgender male, treatment for ovarian cancer where the treatment is medically indicated.

Wow, so, you don't have to treat a Trans* man seeking a hysterectomy ahead of a woman with uterine cancer? But The Federalist said ...

Well, the Federalist seems to have lied.

In the proposed rule, we did not propose to require plans to cover any particular benefit or service, but we provided that a covered entity cannot have coverage that operates in a discriminatory manner. For example, the preamble stated that a plan that covers inpatient treatment for eating disorders in men but not women would not be in compliance with the prohibition of discrimination based on sex. Similarly, a plan that covers bariatric surgery in adults but excludes such coverage for adults with particular developmental disabilities would not be in compliance with the prohibition on discrimination based on disability.

Federal Register

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I think your blowing this way out of proportion you simply say mam you have prostate cancer and this is the recomendation treatment. Really of no concern for the doctor the only issue I see is the doctor or staff making a mistake. What I mean is If talking to her over the phone and the file isny properly marked I can see a mistake being made and referring to her as a him. But I hope in that situation common sense would be used instead of a court.

Duplicate post

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm sorry... you have prostate cancer but you think you are a woman. Therefore your doctor may not be able to treat you or refer you to a men's health specialist. Not without threat of being sued, anyway...

thefederalist.com...

On the same day President Barack Obama announced his controversial transgender school bathroom policy last month, a somewhat more sinister mandate was finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with consequences for health care providers, insurance companies, and American taxpayers.

The rule contains an explicit definition of gender identity that states a person can claim to be male, female, neither, both, or some combination of the two, said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation.

...

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Insanity. There is no other word.

For a doctor to perform his or her job correctly, they need to deal in absolute truths. They need to use their judgement. Absurd does not begin to describe this regulation of the medical profession.

The regulations provide an example of how a doctor could discriminate against a transgender patient, Severino said. If two people are both candidates for a hysterectomy, one a woman with uterine cancer and the other a woman who wants fewer woman parts to look more like a man but is otherwise perfectly healthy, the doctor could be found to be discriminating against the second woman by choosing to treat the woman with cancer instead. The rule states all the second woman would need to attempt to force the surgeon to perform an elective hysterectomy is a note from a psychologist affirming her desire to become a man, Severino said.

...

Among other things, it notes the regulations could open health-care professionals and insurers to extensive legal liability if they decline to provide or pay for sex transition treatments, even if they are deemed medically unnecessary or unwise.

...

Unlike some mandates associated with Obamacare, this rule provides no provision or safeguard for religious persons or providers. A Catholic hospital system that tries to adhere to Roman Catholic teaching about humans being either male or female by refusing to perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman who wants to become a man may be held in violation, Kacsmaryk said, because there are no exceptions for religious institutions in this rule. The only option is to sue, as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor did over Obamacare’s requirement that employers pay for employees’ abortifacients.

Oh boy... ANOTHER transgender bashing thread. People keep posting how they're so tired of having GLBT stuff shoved down their throats, but it's always based on posts from the "anti" crowd.

Do you really want to see GLBT threads stop? STOP POSTING THEM.

To make the assertions found in this article is truly absurd, but what do you expect from a religious nutcase whose writings this year have all revolved around either the insanity of transgender people, the need to contain GLBT issues, or the tired whining about how we need to focus on "religious freedom."

Exactly, stop posting them.

It's funny how they are coming back full force a week after the shooting tragedy. Disturbingly interesting, wonder why.

a reply to: ketsuko

If I were a doctor, I would be in it to care for the patient.

If that means treating someone who identifies as a gender not reflected by their every biological element, as they would wish to be treated, then as a doctor whose remit is to do no harm, I would not consider it my task to misgender or brow beat the individual.

That being said, if I was the sort of doctor who was in it to fluff my burgeoning ego, declare myself god made flesh, and give not one little fig for the feelings of my patients, then I suppose I could justify any behaviour, including callous disregard for any condition the patient might have, not directly related to my field of expertise.

One can be referred to a specialist in prostate health without ever encountering a circumstance where one is referred to as a male or where the department refers to males.

I would, however, agree that in a circumstance where a cancer patient and a person who wants to be rid of their spare parts for less life threatening reasons, are vying for a slot on the table, the person whose condition threatens their physical existence should be the first to go under the knife. Any line of reasoning which says otherwise is not a line of reasoning at all, but ridiculous poppycock washed over with a gloss coat of illogical rubbish.

I feel like that is an issue to be had between the Dr and the Patient, and IMO if someone wants that badly to be treated medically as the sex they identify with over the sex they were born with, then that's on them, and shouldn't reflect negatively on the DR should anything less than desirable happen due to the patients choice.

-Alee

a reply to: Freija

I'm sorry for your life story, I really am. But that does not change the reality of your biology. And that does not change how a doctor should treat your real medical issues.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I think your blowing this way out of proportion you simply say mam you have prostate cancer and this is the recomendation treatment. Really of no concern for the doctor the only issue I see is the doctor or staff making a mistake. What I mean is If talking to her over the phone and the file isny properly marked I can see a mistake being made and referring to her as a him. But I hope in that situation common sense would be used instead of a court.

It is not about the prostate cancer.

It is about the government regulating doctors on how to do their job, despite what that doctor has been trained to do and what their best judgment and training says is the proper course of action.

Because FEELINGS trump actual medical science.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon

Oh boy... ANOTHER transgender bashing thread. People keep posting how they're so tired of having GLBT stuff shoved down their throats, but it's always based on posts from the "anti" crowd.

Oh boy, ANOTHER person missing the forest for the trees. (drink)

Who exactly is going to post links about over-regulation supporting mental delusions? Are we supposed to leave that to the people who agree 100% with the delusions and over-bearing government?

And here I thought the idea was to deny ignorance. Yet I see a lot of people agreeing with regulators and psycho-babble activist shrinks.