Right, but his point is that you can't prove something doesn't work by absence of the thing it's trying to remove.
Think of a filter. You want the filter to remove particles. If it does work, the expectation is they won't be in the water coming out of the filter. However, if you only test the water coming out of the filter, you can't tell if it's working or not. The particles may not exist in the first place. You would need to test the water coming into the filter and coming out.
So in this case, the question is whether those cases of regret did or did not exist BEFORE these rules were in place. I'm guessing that data doesn't exist because the rules have been in place for so long. (I can't actually read the google docs right now since my company blocks all google docs, drives, etc.)
All of that being said, perhaps it's time we remove the rules or pilot their removal. Because if they are effective and helping filter those cases out, perhaps there's a value there. Because it's not like you can just go back - that money is gone. The balance of course is not putting up too many barriers for someone to match their identity to their body. I think it's probably important to have both.
I don't know where to draw that line nor is it my decision. Because how different is this to someone wanting an abortion and forcing them to get a transvaginal ultrasound and look at their baby's face? Which I'm vehemently opposed to. So I'm really of two minds on this.
Edit: I think the bottom line is, they aren't going to let someone go through highly invasive surgery with GA without a need. On the other hand... we have that cat lady. So who knows.
this is exactly what I was getting at.
Do we know how many regrets the current standard of care filters out? Are there so few because those standards are in place? Or are they overburdening?
Research about the causes of the current small number of cases of regret does not tell us anything about the cases of regret that didn’t happen because of the rigorous screening process. We would need control data to compare to.
I think you’re off base on the abortion comparison though. Those laws are pushed by politicians, not doctors. In this case I would guess the current standards have been developed by medical professionals as an attempt to prevent harm to the patient.
Last edited: