HHS Implements Rules Requiring Doctors to treat patients consistent with their "gender identity"


Here’s the rule:

Section 1557 builds on prior Federal civil rights laws to prohibit sex discrimination in health care. The final rule requires that women be treated equally with men in the health care they receive and also prohibits the denial of health care or health coverage based on an individual’s sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity, and sex stereotyping. The final rule also requires covered health programs and activities to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity


This is interesting. It seems that the government is telling doctors that if a biological man requests PAP smear, or a biological women requests a prostate exam, the doctor is violating federal civil rights laws if he/she/xe refuses.


Bizarre times to be sure.


I doubt these issues would come up, but these rules might not allow a psychiatrist to treat patients for gender dysphoria, and instead agree with their delusion. We have already seen convicted criminals like Chelsea Manning suing to have surgery and hormone treatments to confirm their confused sexual identities. Leading health care providers, like Johns Hopkins, have already discontinued sex reassignment surgery because it does not help patients’ underlying problems while creating additional problems that may be irreversible.

This seems to be government practicing medicine without a license and without regard for the best interest of the patients.


So if a male who identifies as a female requests an tubal ligation, the doctor is legally obligated to perform one??

That would certainly be a surgical challenge…


This could get tricky, if treating a patient consistent with their ‘gender identity’ means treating a man as if he were a woman. Or treating a woman as if she were a man.


Oh how I wish someone like Dr. Carson was running HHS.


Sheer lunacy.



This so reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” for some reason: “Sure, sure you’re a woman…” and then the sane person reveals “but “she” has a penis!”!

The thought crossed my mind, what if everyone were nudists? This could never happen. It is all sham and artifice.


I’m kind of hoping they do come up. I think it would be a great thing to overwhelm the federal courts with these types of cases. It’s one of the only ways you’re likely to get rid of the insane amount of regulation coming out of Washington these days.


Likely the main purpose is to force doctors to give hormone injections and pills to people of the wrong gender, upon demand. Probably some are reluctant to do it for medical reasons as well as reasons of conscience. As we know, Hillary Clinton wants us to “change our religious beliefs”, but Obama has a head start on her.

And too, surgeons, particularly plastic surgeons may, in Obama/Hillary’s mind need some coercion to do bizarre surgeries to remove body parts “inconsistent” with the patient’s “self identity”.


I’m wondering what happens, when, a few years later, a patient decides he really is the sex he was born with, and files a malpractice suit against a physician or surgeon for mutilating what had been a perfectly healthy body.


Not likely. Having worked in a hospital, a patient or parent or legal guardian would have to sign a consent form prior to such surgery.



Sure could happen. Whether it’s true or not, I read recently that “Caitlin” Jenner is having second thoughts.


Professional opinions are second to the demands of social change. No longer are medical professionals allowed to exercise their professional judgement about the right course of action. It started with requiring pharmacists to dispense abortion inducing drugs–even off label uses to induce abortion. Then we have the ACLU trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform medically unnecessary procedures to protect “reproductive choice.” Now, medical professionals will be forced to assist with “gender identity.”

Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc are being treated like vending machines. No longer do their opinions matter, only their license to write scrip and perform procedures.


I’m thinking this probably has more to do with not misgendering folks. Trans people aren’t idiots they know that their physical body (pre op) does not match their gender identity which is what the word trans means. I doubt people with penises will ask for pap smears. What this means is that nurses and pharmacists cannot misgender somebody because of their opinion that should be kept outside of work.


Reality doesn’t work that way. This is madness.





So you think the wording here merely means that doctors ought to use a patient’s preferred pronoun/title? I certainly hope that is what is meant, rather than restricting a doctor’s right to refuse treatments that he or she doesn’t believe to be ethical.


Except, that post op bodies still do not match their gender identity. They still don’t have all the reproductive organs, their bone density, muscle mass, organ size all don’t match their gender identity. And all those things could be very important to a doctor diagnosing a disease, prescribing medicine, or evaluating risk factors for certain diseases (cancer, or cardiovascular disease, which can be very different in males versus females).


True. The agenda here is quite obvious: at a time when the psychiatric profession is beginning to question whether mutilation and hormones are the best treatment for GID (some are now linking it to autism, V. S. Ramachandran has suggested a link to bipolar disorder, and yours truly has suggested a link to schizophrenia - the common theme is an abnormality in brain development either prenatally or in early life :)), the government wants to get a head start and accomplish by law what science may no longer consider appropriate.

Lamentable. :frowning:

(On the other hand, imagine the absurdity: I walk into a clinic, demand a hysterectomy, and sue them for imaginary post-operative complications. Sometimes tragedy and farce are very close together. :rolleyes:)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.