Medical Malpractice or Gross Negligence?
It has been universally accepted for decades that fully informed consent of the individual in both medical treatment and experimentation is not only essential but legally required. All reputable governments, NGOs, organizations, policy leaders and physicians have widely established that it is absolutely mandatory. Excluding specific limited medical situations, children do NOT have the ability to give informed consent.
Informed Consent is defined as:
“A patient's consent to a medical or surgical procedure or to participation in a clinical study after being properly advised of the relevant medical facts and the risks involved.”
The roots of informed consent and medical ethics arose largely from the Nuremberg Code in the 1940s. The Nuremberg Code became the basis for all modern medical ethics laws and global human rights, including informed consent laws in the United States of America. Countless laws, codes and regulations all across the world rely on its ten principles. The Nuremberg Code spends so much time on informed consent because it is far too easy for a scientist or physician to manipulate the average person into complying with the doctor’s preference. This can be for an ill-intentioned reason or just a matter of limited time, information or resources. Regardless, the temptation to misinform or under-inform patients will always exist. This is precisely why the Nuremberg Code places such enormous emphasis on obtaining informed consent.
A Dereliction of Duty
Per the Nuremberg Code, the “duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment (treatment). It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity." Doctors offering ANY medical procedure have the sole responsibility of educating and equipping themselves with the knowledge of all the relevant medical facts associated with the treatment in order to obtain true informed consent from their patients. The professional obligation of the physician cannot legally be entrusted to anyone else. Again, we repeat, it is not permissible for the physician to legally shirk this responsibility - the legal responsibility forever remains with the physician, even if the physician instructs a subordinate to speak the words to the patient.
The medical harms of “gender-affirming care” (aka medical mutilation) are well documented and growing. The dangers include infertility, sexual dysfunction, loss of libido, inability to orgasm, cardiovascular issues, urinary complications, bone fractures, neurological anomalies, insulin resistance, permanent scarring, infection and even death. Doctors offering these procedures must be well versed in all the known risks that have proven to result from these procedures in order to adequately obtain informed consent from their patients. Essentially, in order for a patient to give their full informed consent, they must have a complete understanding that all persons who undergo “gender-affirming care” will trade in a physically healthy body for a chronically sick body that, in the best-case scenario, needs lifelong medical care and intervention.
Throughout human history, there has never been widespread swaths of the population willing to sign up to exchange healthy bodies for bodies dependent on lifelong medical care. Because of this, we know that the side effects and complication rates of “gender-affirming care” are not being thoroughly conveyed to patients by their physicians. Healthcare providers ignorant of the facts regarding medical mutilation could be deemed to have committed “ordinary negligence” which is covered by medical malpractice insurance. However, those who are willfully ignorant, are guilty of gross negligence which exceeds the mere ordinary negligence of medical malpractice. In fact, doctors or nurses who do not convey all the facts to their patients could be criminally charged with medical battery.
In the law, there is a phrase Res Ipsa Loquitur which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” This phrase is invoked when the facts are so clear, a finder of fact (judge or jury) is not even necessary. Res Ipsa Loquitur that legal informed consent is not being provided by doctors offering “gender-affirming care” to children, because persons with healthy bodies would not willingly consent to trade these for unhealthy bodies.
Minors Cannot Consent
It must be stated that there is no precedent for allowing a minor to consent to his or her own medical treatment. With the exception of circumstances such as life-saving emergencies or pregnancy, patients under the age of consent cannot give consent. For example, an emergency physician can substitute for a parent in the case of life-threatening complications from a car accident, but cannot treat a teenager with a sprained ankle. In short, the law does not allow for minors to consent to permanent and life-altering treatments - which is exactly what “gender-affirming care” is.
Adults, not children, have the mental capacity to make informed decisions for procedures that can affect the rest of a child’s life. This is exactly why the responsibility of providing the informed consent of a minor has been delegated to parents or legal guardians. The tragic reality of “gender-affirming care” is that anyone (adult or minor) who signs off on these procedures is “consenting” to medical mutilation that will lead to permanent disfigurement and lifelong health complications. It is simply not credible that ANYONE tasked with safeguarding a child’s health and safety would give a doctor consent to medically mutilate that child when fully informed of all the risks.
While a parent or legal guardian’s authority to consent for their children must always be respected, we submit that no one possesses the legal authority to consent to the medical mutilation of children. The history of common law supports that no person (parent or State) can consent to medical interventions that will inflict lifelong health complications on another human being who will eventually gain the legal ability to refuse or consent for him or herself upon reaching adulthood. The evidence shows that “gender-affirming care” has a certainty of creating such health complications.
In the case that a person is unable to give consent (i.e. incompetence), it is recognized that a medical power of attorney or family can provide consent, but there are legal limits to jurisdiction. For instance, there needs to be clear and convincing evidence or substantial proof that the patient would have accepted the alternate decision-maker’s consent to treatment. However, this is not possible here because minors are not physiologically capable of making such a decision. We submit that until a minor becomes an adult, there is no common law precedent for a de facto (parent or State) medical power of attorney to consent to medical mutilation including actual or constructive destruction of bodily functions. Lastly, it is void on public policy grounds to permit any other third party to consent to permanent disfigurement. While there are rare medical situations that may require these life-altering interventions, the law can provide allowances for these circumstances.
Taking A Stand Against Medical Mutilation
Recognizing the profound, irreversible harm associated with hormonal and surgical interventions aimed at addressing gender dysphoria, AFLDS calls for an immediate moratorium on these interventions for children. Sign our petition TODAY, and urge Congress to make it clear to physicians and hospitals that offering these procedures to children is illegal.
We encourage you to visit our website where you can access a wealth of information and resources on the topic of medical mutilation. Equipping ourselves with the truth is the first step towards protecting our children.
Stay tuned - AFLDS will continue to keep the American people updated on our progress and efforts to end medical mutilation and protect children everywhere.