You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Two dilemmas for medical ethics in the treatment of gender dysphoria in youth
  1. Teresa Baron,
  2. Geoffrey Dierckxsens
  1. Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Czech Republic
  1. Correspondence to Dr Teresa Baron, Interdisciplinary Research Lab for Bioethics, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Czech Republic; baron{at}flu.cas.cz

Abstract

Both the diagnosis and medical treatment of gender dysphoria (GD)—particularly in children and adolescents—have been the subject of significant controversy in recent years. In this paper, we outline the means by which GD is diagnosed in children and adolescents, the currently available treatment options, and the bioethical issues these currently raise. In particular, we argue that the families and healthcare providers of children presenting with GD currently face two main ethical dilemmas in decision making regarding treatment: the pathway dilemma and the consent dilemma.

  • ethics
  • sexuality/gender
  • decision-making

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107260

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    There are no data in this work.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors TB conceptualised the manuscript and is the primary author. GD coauthored and revised critically for important intellectual content. Both authors approved the version of this work to be resubmitted after review at JME.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Author note Since the acceptance of this paper for publication, the Tavistock High Court decision it mentions has been overturned on appeal. For a summary of that appeal see the following editorial by McMillan and Gavaghan https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/11/717.

    Linked Articles

    Other content recommended for you