Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Defending two dilemmas
  1. Teresa Baron1,2,
  2. Geoffrey Dierckxsens1
  1. 1Interdisciplinary Research Lab for Bioethics, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Czech Republic
  2. 2Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Wien, Austria
  1. Correspondence to Dr Teresa Baron, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha 110 00, Czech Republic; baron{at}flu.cas.cz

Abstract

Ashley’s response to our recent paper argues that a fuller appreciation of the available clinical data, of the rights of children to autonomy, and of the primary purpose of gender-affirming endocrine treatment supports the rejection of both the pathway and consent dilemmas for the treatment of gender dysphoria, as raised in this journal. In this response, we highlight certain misrepresentations of our argument, and defend our conclusions against Ashley’s main objections.

  • decision making
  • ethics
  • gender identity

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors TB is the primary author. GD revised critically.

  • Funding This study was funded by Lumina Quaeuruntur (LQ300092001).

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

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.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you