Open mike 01/05/2024

7 comments on “Open mike 01/05/2024 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Hunter Thompson II 1

   1 May 2024 at 10:31 am

   The deadline for public submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill has passed, but citizens can still express their views on it by writing to their local MP.

   Copy the message to the PM as well.
   • ianmac 1.1

     1 May 2024 at 11:46 am

     Bishop must be hurting re the response to the Fast-trackBill.

     But Bishop did say a very crucial element of the Bill could be changed. That’s who makes the final decision. In the legislation as currently written, an expert advisory panel reviews applications and recommends any necessary environmental or other conditions but ministers make the final call.

     That’s different from the current fast-track process, introduced in 2020 as part of the Covid-19 economic recovery, in which ministers refer projects to the expert panel which then makes the decision on whether to grant or refuse applications.

     https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/01/bishop-backtracks-after-fast-track-backlash/?utm_source=Newsroom&utm_campaign=3969aafe8a-Daily_Briefing+01.05.2024&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-3969aafe8a-95522477&mc_cid=3969aafe8a&mc_eid=88a3081e75
2. That_guy 2

   1 May 2024 at 11:35 am

   Interesting recent publication about GAMOC (the Gender Affirming Model of Care).

   Rapidly expanding gender-affirming care based on consensus instead of evidence justifies rigorous governance and transparency

   https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10398562241249579

   What we see in Australia is:

   1) the GAMOC has expanded to treat more patients and have more staff without any of the normal safeguards that are usually applied when a new medical technique or model of care is mooted

   The lack of a high-quality evidence base for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the interventions recommended by the GAMOC suggests this model requires a higher than usual standard of clinical governance and transparency. However, as demonstrated by this research, even with the aid of FOI requests, it is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about the nature, quality, or outcomes of the GAMOC in Australia, other than its rapid expansion in the absence of transparent oversight.

   2) Data is at best patchy, often missing, and only made available when legally forced to do so with a FOI.

   In the absence of the sort of standardised annual reports provided by most other parts of the public health service, it is impossible to draw strong conclusions about the strengths and limitations of the services provided to gender diverse patients in Australia. The most remarkable patterns revealed by FOI data are the rapid expansion of patients, staff, and interventions in Queensland since 2018, the rapid expansion of patients but not staff or interventions in Victoria, and the relatively restrained increase in patients and interventions but rapid increase in staff in NSW.

   Perhaps the greatest anomaly among these data is the complete absence of any information about hormone therapies delivered by public health services in NSW.

   3) There is no reliable evidence that GAMOC reduces suicidality, and due to "diagnostic overshadowing" where the "trans" diagnosis means that other mental health comorbidities are not addressed, there is at least the possibility that suicidality is increased since these mental health comorbidities are not addressed.

   The Cass Review reported that the GAMOC provided at the Tavistock was associated with diagnostic overshadowing, where the diagnosis of gender dysphoria led to neglect of other health and mental health conditions. If it is true that gender-affirming care reduces the probability of the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness, and the risk of suicide in gender dysphoric patients is associated with psychiatric illness and not with gender dysphoria, then paradoxically it is plausible that treatment under the GAMOC would increase the risk of suicide, rather than decrease this risk.

   In summary: an experimental model of care, being performed on children, at an increased rate, without normal standards of governance or data gathering, and which may actually increase the primary thing it's supposed to prevent, while also imposing lifelong (and currently under-researched) consequences to said young people.

   There is no reason I can see to believe the situation is any better here.
   • Tabletennis 2.1

     1 May 2024 at 1:09 pm

     "There is no reason I can see to believe the situation is any better here."

     The Modus operandi is mostly everywhere the same: no data collected or hide any data if you have them.
     The real evidence are teenagers who have gone through the “system” of gender affirming ”care” and relay their experiences.

     https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=1114244732856579
     Gender Medicine is harmful
     These are their courageous voices
     • That_guy 2.1.1

       1 May 2024 at 2:38 pm

       From the paper:

       A major gap in the Australian framework for the GAMOC is the failure to describe how to detect, encourage, and support those patients who detransition. The WPATH standards recommend a multidisciplinary approach, but don’t describe how to implement this (pS41). Neither the AusPATH guidelines nor the NSW Health Framework even contain the word ‘detransition’.

       PATHA guidelines also do not even contain the word “detransition”. I just checked. https://patha.nz/Guidelines
3. SPC 3

   1 May 2024 at 12:45 pm

   Notable for missing the failure of NZF's coalition with National to last the 1996-1999 term.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350261602/can-anti-establishment-nz-first-return-parliament-after-it-holds-power
4. adam 4

   1 May 2024 at 5:12 pm

   Class war.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS