The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
A sample of 120 adolescent smokers (80 males, 40 females), most of whom were referred by school personnel after being caught with cigarettes at school (n=113), reported motivations for making a quit attempt during a smoking cessation project. Most students (n=76) were randomly assigned to a four session cessation program that included discussion of a number of motivational topics, and the remaining students were assigned to a self-help control group that received a pamphlet recommending strategies for quitting. Reported motivations for quitting did not differ significantly across the two treatment conditions. Concern about future health (73%) was the most popular reason given for making a quit attempt, followed by concern about current health (65%). Concerns about physical appearance (59%), the cost of cigarettes (52%), and athletic performance (51%) were also listed as motivators by a majority of the participants. Future health was the most popular choice for the most important motivator to quit (35%). Females and participants with fewer best friends smoking were more likely to report that the prevalence of non-smoking teenagers, the relationship between smoking and weight, and physical appearance concerns were motivators to quit. African Americans were more likely than Whites to list current health concern as the most important motivator.
Though medical care can vary to some extent regionally and internationally due to economic, social, and cultural differences, the similarities in treatment protocols far outnumber the dissimilarities. How best to treat a broken arm, or a melanoma, or diabetes is consistent across borders. Yet children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria receive radically different treatments depending on where they live. With gender clinics in the United States under significant stress due to the intense politicization of this field of medicine, and with the well-being of especially vulnerable children at stake, it is crucial that these inconsistencies be addressed. The best way to do this would be for a major, trusted medical organization such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Academy of Medicine to commission a systematic review of the evidence underlying pediatric gender medicine.
The time to conduct a systematic review is now. There has been a sharp increase in the number of minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the U.S. An analysis of insurance claims found that in 2017, 15,172 patients aged 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria; in 2021, the number grew to 42, 167, an increase of roughly 300%. Other countries have also seen an increase in minors presenting with gender dysphoria.
Across the border in Finland, which also conducted a systematic review, physicians are told by the Council for Choices in Healthcare that psychosocial support is the first-line treatment for adolescent gender dysphoria, along with exploratory therapy and treatment for psychiatric comorbidities. Finland considers the medical transition of minors to be an experimental practice and claims that no medical treatment can be considered evidence based.
Given the vulnerability of youths with gender dysphoria, inconsistencies in clinical guidance for treating these patients are both ethically concerning and medically consequential. A patient in Sweden, Finland, or England will receive blockers or cross-sex hormones only in exceptional circumstances, while some clinics in the U.S. will prescribe them after a single meeting. This discrepancy in clinical approach cannot be explained by national cultural differences in attitudes toward LGBT+ people; research shows that Sweden, Finland, and the Great Britain all rank higher than the U.S. for acceptance of sexual and gender minorities.
At a time of intense political polarization in the U.S. over LGBT+ health care, and with the dramatic rise in gender dysphoria diagnoses among the pediatric population, it is crucial that trusted medical authorities in the U.S. make every effort to establish clinical practice guidelines. Such guidelines require systematic reviews of the available scientific evidence, which other LGBT+-friendly countries have shown are possible. It is crucial that these reviews be conducted by impartial experts to avoid bias. There can be no medical or ethical reason why care provided to vulnerable adolescents should vary so drastically from one place to the next. Evidence-based medicine is the cure for politicized medicine.
I was involved in advocacy, and research, for the health of transgender persons in Virginia from the early 2010s including landmark, early qualitative and quantitative research (including ; findings were incorporated in an early report out of NASEM -health-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-people-building). We were able to engage not only metropolitan, but also rural, participation in this research. An incredible effort lead by the late expert in research design and advocacy with sexual and gender minorities, Judith Bradford, who is buried in a humble grave in rural Franklin Virginia.
As for European countries being more friendly towards LGBTQ+ people, support for some gender and sexual minorities does not mean support for all gender and sexual minorities. The UK has faced rising transphobia for years now: -surge-endangering-trans-people-uk
They are vulnerable because of revenue-seeking motives of providers, including, as I noted, proliferation of online-only, or online-mostly, gender care groups, referral networks, etc. that poorly understand, implement or care about informed consent and other ethical foundations of care.
AND they are vulnerable because youth brains are not adult brains about which we still know too little [ e.g. -neuroscience-teen-brain ] ; but what we do know ought to inform what we regard as a scientifically, professionally ethically, and morally sound approach to informed consent.
7fc3f7cf58