Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Should Indiana lawmakers prohibit access to gender affirming medical treatment for transgender youth?
Our primary goal as pediatricians is to provide the best possible care for our patients. We rely on evidence-based medicine to guide our practice, and we work closely with families to make sure we are meeting the unique needs of each child. Senate Bill 480 would interfere with this process by preventing physicians from providing evidence-based, age-appropriate care that we know is effective.
Gender identity is a core aspect of a person’s identity and impacts their mental health and well-being. Gender-affirming care is a multidisciplinary team of providers whose goal is to support the patient’s social, psychological, behavioral and medical needs. Denying access to gender-affirming care can have significant consequences for the mental health of transgender and gender-diverse youth. Research has shown that transgender youth have significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicide attempts compared to their cisgender peers, and providing gender-affirming care has been shown to improve mental health outcomes for this patient population.
This is not a new practice. Evidence-based standards on gender-affirming care have existed for decades, and the nation’s leading health organizations support gender-affirming care—including but not limited to the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Endocrine Society, Pediatric Endocrine Society and more. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that gender-diverse and transgender youth require specialized medical care to support their health and well-being, and SB 480 would make that care impossible in Indiana.
As pediatricians, we take seriously our responsibility to provide the best possible care for all our patients. We also respect the important role parents play in making decisions for their children. We believe this bill interferes with the ability of parents to access the best possible medical care for their children. Parents should be able to rely on the expertise of their child’s doctor and choose a path together that is in the best interest of that child.
In my practice, I have seen firsthand the positive impact gender-affirming care can have on young people. This kind of care can improve mental health outcomes, reduce rates of suicide and self-harm, and promote overall well-being. It is a critical part of providing comprehensive health care to gender-expansive and transgender youth, and limiting access to this type of care is not in the best interest of Indiana’s children.•
__________
Stelzer, a pediatrician, is president of the Indiana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Gender-destructive care has no place in Indiana. Why is it ok to mutilate the genitals of our youth before they have proper informed consent abilities?
These kids will probably grow up depressed and maybe even commit suicide when they realize they made an unrecoverable mistake.
Good for Indiana legislators seeing this destructive movement for what it is.
If the AMA supports your position, then I by default know it’s a liberal or “woke” position because the AMA is the definition of such. There’s a reason that only a super small percentage of physicians actually belong to this organization.
I think it’s relevant – given that IBJ is allowing Dr. Stelzer to appear under her title as president of AAP-Indiana – to note the work of Aaron Sibarium in uncovering that the official opinions of the American Academy of Pediatricians is likely NOT representative of the majority of even its own members. (https://www.thefp.com/p/the-hijacking-of-pediatric-medicine) This should be a major story because most people, myself included, assume a rigorous internal process, polling, etc. is conducted by groups like the AMA and AAP before making official statements. It clearly is not the case at AAP so it’s illogical to conclude that a majority of pediatricians support Dr. Stelzer’s position. She also has a financial stake