14 hrs ago·edited 14 hrs agoLiked by J. Edward Les, MD
**Edit: This is from Leslie. Substack gets us mixed up even though I sign in with my own e-mail address.
I agree that a more far-reaching ambition would be better. I’m disappointed that children currently taking GNRHa’s will not have to stop them. (Fortunately no one is going to be started on them after 16 anyway.) But politics is the art of the possible and I don't mean to damn Premier Smith with faint praise. Not at all. She knows her Government’s legislation (assuming it passes into law) will be Charter-challenged by the activists who are well-funded enough to take it to the Supreme Court. She needs a clear victory that the law does not violate made-up Charter rights invented by activist judges and shouted about by federal Cabinet Ministers. One test often applied in adjudicating Charter claims is, Is the legislation the minimum required to accomplish a legitimate state goal or has the government over-stepped in its curtailment of liberty or body autonomy or gender rights or whatever? Her Government, I think — I’m a civil libertarian, not a lawyer— , will be able to show that the legislation was targeted to what was necessary to protect minors and that self-regulation of the medical profession by itself has failed to do so.
True, her Government can Charter-proof the law by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. But this is politically risky and lapses after 5 years. It would, also, be valid only in Alberta. If she wins at the Supreme Court it will set a precedent that other provinces can screw up their courage and pass similar laws. And if she loses, she can still use the Clause.
The rest is up to us, in medicine. We have to get our colleagues to stop doing this work in adults, or in anyone. Eventually they will pretend they never endorsed it anyway....and will say to themselves as they are trying to fall asleep, “WTF was I thinking?”
I agree with you wholeheartedly re the "art of the possible". Yet it needs to be said that harmful meds and practices are harmful meds and practices, even if "you've started them already". And since I'm not beholden to any political agenda, I might as well be the one to say it :). I hope, like, you, that this is a stepping stone - a huge one - to the whole toxic enterprise being shut down.
Thanks Dr. Les for standing up for children! I can only hope other Premiers will have some courage and put some safeguards in for children in every province. You said it, the activists have certainly dug their tentacles into every aspect of society and it makes them giggle with delight when they get more coverage (trans kids/surgery/keeping parents out of discussion, etc.)
**Edit: This is from Leslie. Substack gets us mixed up even though I sign in with my own e-mail address.
I agree that a more far-reaching ambition would be better. I’m disappointed that children currently taking GNRHa’s will not have to stop them. (Fortunately no one is going to be started on them after 16 anyway.) But politics is the art of the possible and I don't mean to damn Premier Smith with faint praise. Not at all. She knows her Government’s legislation (assuming it passes into law) will be Charter-challenged by the activists who are well-funded enough to take it to the Supreme Court. She needs a clear victory that the law does not violate made-up Charter rights invented by activist judges and shouted about by federal Cabinet Ministers. One test often applied in adjudicating Charter claims is, Is the legislation the minimum required to accomplish a legitimate state goal or has the government over-stepped in its curtailment of liberty or body autonomy or gender rights or whatever? Her Government, I think — I’m a civil libertarian, not a lawyer— , will be able to show that the legislation was targeted to what was necessary to protect minors and that self-regulation of the medical profession by itself has failed to do so.
True, her Government can Charter-proof the law by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. But this is politically risky and lapses after 5 years. It would, also, be valid only in Alberta. If she wins at the Supreme Court it will set a precedent that other provinces can screw up their courage and pass similar laws. And if she loses, she can still use the Clause.
The rest is up to us, in medicine. We have to get our colleagues to stop doing this work in adults, or in anyone. Eventually they will pretend they never endorsed it anyway....and will say to themselves as they are trying to fall asleep, “WTF was I thinking?”
I agree with you wholeheartedly re the "art of the possible". Yet it needs to be said that harmful meds and practices are harmful meds and practices, even if "you've started them already". And since I'm not beholden to any political agenda, I might as well be the one to say it :). I hope, like, you, that this is a stepping stone - a huge one - to the whole toxic enterprise being shut down.
Thanks Dr. Les for standing up for children! I can only hope other Premiers will have some courage and put some safeguards in for children in every province. You said it, the activists have certainly dug their tentacles into every aspect of society and it makes them giggle with delight when they get more coverage (trans kids/surgery/keeping parents out of discussion, etc.)
Well said.
Excellent commentary, I love your work.