The subject of “gender-affirming care” remains a hotly debated topic, especially as states pass laws restricting the use of this practice on minor children suffering from gender dysphoria. These laws have already prompted several medical facilities to stop offering puberty blockers and surgical treatments to kids.
According to a recent report, some medical organizations in states where “gender-affirming care” for children is still allowed have stopped offering the service. Much of the reason has to do with the fact that in these states, there is increased civil liability if an individual wishes to sue after growing older and regretting going through these treatments.
In light of the fact that many detransitioners have been filing lawsuits against medical professionals and facilities for misleading them about the impact of these treatments, it makes sense that more of these companies would be hesitant to take the risk.
As Republican-led states have rushed to ban gender-affirming care for minors, some families with transgender children found a bit of solace: At least they lived in states that would allow those already receiving puberty blockers or hormone therapy to continue.
But in some places, including Missouri and North Dakota, the care has abruptly been halted because medical providers are wary of harsh liability provisions in those same laws — one of multiple reasons that advocates say care has become harder to access even where it remains legal.
In Missouri, the law does not ban “gender-affirming care” for children. But it does allow patients to file lawsuits against facilities offering these treatments -- long after they become adults.
Both blamed a section of the law that increased the liability for providers. Under it, patients can sue for injury from the treatment until they turn 36, or even longer if the harm continues past then. The law gives the health care provider the burden of proving that the harm was not the result of hormones or puberty-blocking drugs. And the minimum damages awarded in such cases would be $500,000.
North Dakota has a similar provision in its law, except it extends the age at which one can file a lawsuit.
In North Dakota, the law allows treatment to continue for minors who were receiving care before the law took effect in April. But it does not allow a doctor to switch the patient to a different gender dysphoria-related medication. And it allows patients to sue over injuries from treatment until they turn 48.
Providers there have simply stopped gender-affirming care, said Brittany Stewart, a lawyer at Gender Justice, which is suing over the ban in the state. “To protect themselves from criminal liability, they’ve just decided to not even risk it because that vague law doesn’t give them enough detail to understand exactly what they can and cannot do,” Stewart said.
In response to these laws, facilities like the Washington University Gender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital and University of Missouri Health Care have halted “gender-affirming care” treatments for children. This is intended to prevent a situation in which a patient regrets their decision and decides to hold them civilly liable.
While proponents of using these treatments on children might argue that this development will only hurt kids who have issues with their gender, it is worth noting that this approach to helping kids with gender dysphoria has not been proven to be beneficial. Indeed, countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, France, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, which have been using the “gender-affirming care” model for decades, are now abandoning the method after seeing the damage it has caused to patients after they reach adulthood.
This story raises a question: If the people working at these facilities believe that “gender-affirming care” is the right way to help kids with gender issues, why would they fear potential lawsuits in the future? If the treatments were so effective, then this eventuality would be rare, would it not? With any medical treatment, there could be the risk of being sued if something goes wrong, yet hospitals still use them.
From where I sit, this suggests that many medical professionals who advocate for puberty blockers and surgery are not as confident in these methods as they would have us believe. The stories of detransitioners are becoming more prominent in the conversation over transgenderism – and so are their lawsuits against the medical professionals who subjected them to these treatments.
Given these developments, it is only right to question whether using methods that have irreversible effects is appropriate, especially since most kids dealing with gender dysphoria end up growing out of it by the time they become adults – without puberty blockers and surgery.
