Another thought, by Kurt LaRose...
An article by The Missouri Independent prompts me to wander (and wonder) more into the details of 'the need to protect...'
This sentence is not only a reality for current residents and patients in the state (and other states in the US who are operating under similar political winds and paradigms) but too, for providers of mental health:
Patients need to be protected - adults and minors. Malpractice and neglect by providers is already protected in every state in the US. Doctors, therapists, teams of providers must be able to care for the idiosyncratic needs of patients. These laws likely are harming many people: patients and providers. This point is true not only in transgender discussions but in other medical protection scenarios as well. Equal actions of lawmakers to protect citizens is not apparent in the premise of what defines healthcare or populations in need of protection: take pharmacy regulations as an example of protection laws that are not equally applied (and are not nationally targeted).
These (gender based care) targeted group fear based laws, these political seeking laws or maybe even more cynically these separatist intended laws (aka: 'yeah, you can just go ahead and leave our state') hurt the masses, and overlook the majority of the masses. It's possible these laws are guided by paradigms of religion and some suppositions in faith - but the point here is that protection as a rationale is void, in actuality.
The assumptions in these kinds of medical restrictive laws is that the very same states where systems to protect patients already exist in mammouth, their enforcing agencies are not competent to protect. Worse, these same states who license and credential providers to treat patients, suggest by outlawing individual patient care scenarios, that the states own standards are defunct. Further, these laws underestimate the intelligence of the average US American consumer of healthcare. These patient/provider restricting care laws make us collectively, look incompetent - from the top (where laws are passed) down (where one to one care occurs in practice offices everywhere).
Here's an omitted or neglected majority scenario:
Everyday in the US millions and millions of patients get life changing prescriptions with known side effects, some of which are permanent. From causing diabetes, seizures, addiction, sleep deprivation, cancer, cognitive impairment, reduced mobility and loss of the ability to walk correctly, pee or even have sex. And the legislatures of the US are not racing to 'protect' its citizenry in these regards. Why not? Isn't the permanent debilitating side effects of certain treatments for all people (children and adults) in need of protecting in the doling out of meds?
We also underestimate the impact of insurance companies in all of this "healthcare debate" stuff. Did you know that most insurance companies will not cover a comprehensive, psychometrically valid, psychological evaluation (except in very specific and often repetitive request/appeal scenarios)? What does this mean in the overall need to legislate the protection of the citizenry? Why not pass laws that require insurance carriers to pay for valid diagnostics - wouldn't this protect the people?
I think this is worth quoting from the article once more, with the above context included as an alternative consideration to what is happening to patients, providers and state agencies all across this nation:
"...and even his mental well being could no longer be guaranteed..."
Here is the link to the referenced article:
