Too many doctors seem to subscribe to the notion that they must do something, even if that thing is harmful.
- Status
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
They’re doing the devil’s work. And some poorly catechized professed Catholics are even going along with the diabolical lies of this abhorrent ideology.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Supporting your argument with the case of lobotomies doesn’t work that well. For one, the brains of many of the people on whom lobotomies were performed were not “perfectly healthy organs.” We now use pharmaceuticals of one sort or another to treat most brain disorders and diseases, but in the first half of the 20th century, most of those drugs were not yet discovered or in common use. Under the circumstances and considering the state of medical knowledge at the time, lobotomies were sometimes probably the best option available (although their use was also abused in many cases).OraLabora:
I see.
So not knowing how to treat is license to mutilate?
This is the same mentality that brought us frontal lobotomies through the first half of the 20th century for anyone with some condition that was little understood or just too inconvenient to treat.
Take, for example, the case of Henry Molaison (the famous Patient HM). He had a lobotomy performed on him because he suffered from epilepsy and was having increasingly more frequent and more severe epileptic seizures (his brain was not a “perfectly healthy organ”). He was desperate for some relief. The lobotomy that was performed on him in 1953 by Dr. William Scoville did end up stopping the epileptic seizures but resulted in his inability to form short term memories (his long term memory remained intact). From what was known in 1953 and with no knowledge that the drugs we now use to treat epilepsy would later become available, would it have been better for doctors to have allowed Patient HM to continue to have life threatening epileptic seizures instead of having a lobotomy performed on him?
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
While I disagree with the sentiment expressed here, at least you’re being honest as to the REAL reason why some in this thread are opposed to sexual reassignment therapy. All the psychological mumbo-jumbo is only a pretense.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
This statement seems unfair. A lot if people who express concern about the issue of transgenderism and how it is treated within society have concern for the affected individuals.
While I do not object to some limited sex change operations, I do believe that the predominant social view in our society today is not leading towards an improvement in the lives of those affected by gender dysphoria.
Last edited:
Oh yes.
Let’s take someone with psychological problems and slice up their brain.
Psychological problem gone…new problem, someone else’s to deal with.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I agree with you that my statement was a bit unfair. People probably have different reasons for objecting to the treatment of transgender people. Some, however, including researchers, seem to me to disguise their essential opposition based on their religious beliefs in psychological terms. I’m not saying you’re doing that.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Epilepsy is not a psychological problem. And it’s easy to pass judgement from hindsight on what doctors did in the past. Some of their treatments seem kind of barbaric by today’s standards. On the other hand, we wouldn’t understand nearly as much as we do now about how the brain works without people like Patient HM. It was because of him that we first started to learn how and where our brains store our memories.Thorolfr:
Oh yes.
Let’s take someone with psychological problems and slice up their brain.
Psychological problem gone…new problem, someone else’s to deal with.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I think that, for some, it may come from a desire to promote sterile sex, part of the population control push.
Last edited:
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
I’m opposed on the basis of God’s holy creation of marriage and family, yep. The devil attacks marriage and family, the holy communion of persons that is sacramental marriage, by any means possible. Those pushing the lgbt agenda are dupes of the devil.
Last edited:
So what exactly is the understanding we gain from mutilation of perfectly healthy sex organs?
Actually, no.
They have no idea if they destroyed the memory, or the path to the memory, or some other mechanism that plays a part.
It does create more victims.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Indeed. We shouldn’t condemn someone if they lived up to the standards of the past. Of course we have moved on (I hope) and of course we cannot apply the standards of the past to people now. However, in all charity, we have to assume that doctors who performed lobotomies in the past were not doing so out of ill will, but out of a genuine concern for the well-being of the patient by applying the best of their knowledge at the time.
Once, we bled people to cure disease… based on the knowledge of the time (we still do today, ethically; look up hereditary hemochromatosis!).
Not much, I’ll admit. However we’re not treating a sex organ, we are treating the whole person for whom that sex organ causes, in many cases, sever distress to the point of suicide. The brain function understanding that we’ll get concerning transgenderism will come from research.
Research goes on for many cancers, but because we don’t know as much as we like, we don’t refrain from treating the patient with the best we have on hand. Many of those treatments do, BTW, impinge on healthy sex organs. Many forms of chemotherapy cause permanent sterility.
No, what is being done is mutilation of perfectly healthy organs. The individual is not being helped at all. They are being confirmed in a distorted view of reality in the most damaging and irreversible way possible.
It has never been healthy to deny reality.
It is even more hideous to tell these patients that it is healthy.
O
OraLabora
Guest
That is patently untrue. Most transgendered patients who undergo surgery, are satisfied with the result and have no regrets.
The reality is that they are transgendered and are severely distressed by the gender assigned at birth. Denying that reality is to condemn them to a lifetime (possibly shortened by suicide) of severe unhappiness.
Assigned at birth?
Really?
I doubt that.
The OP of this thread is just the latest example.
As to satisfaction, that is not the same as healed or even helped.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I prefer to take my stats from reliable medical sources, not LifeSiteNews which is notoriously agenda-driven. I posted those statistics in post no. 7.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I’m sure that there’s quite a lot of disagreement about what constitutes “reality.” And from what I’ve read, many, perhaps most, transgender people never have surgery on their sexual organs, so this one issue shouldn’t dominate the discussion. And if you read what OraLabora has said about his daughter, it’s obvious that coming out as a transgender person helped her quite a lot.OraLabora:
No, what is being done is mutilation of perfectly healthy organs. The individual is not being helped at all. They are being confirmed in a distorted view of reality in the most damaging and irreversible way possible.
It has never been healthy to deny reality.
It is even more hideous to tell these patients that it is healthy.
As a gay man, coming out when I was 21 and accepting that it’s OK for me to be gay and that homosexuality is something that is natural and normal for some people helped me quite a lot. Before I came out I was in considerable mental distress. I know that this is contrary to the teachings of many Christian churches, including the one I grew up in, but my mental health would be much worse now if I had remained in the closet and continued to believe that my sexuality is something bad and “disordered.” Sometimes, we don’t have much choice in the matter and have to do whatever we can to stay alive and remain sane. I’m sure that transgender people are also doing the best they can in a difficult and painful situation.
Last edited:
- Status