gender reassignment issues in Alberta

[toban]

Just FYI I just noticed this item concerning SRS in Alberta this morning, in today's online National Post, and thought it might be of interest to some of our girls here, who may already be aware of, or are involved in this issue.

Those with interest might be inclined to make their own comments in the Nat. Post on that issue, which might, in the long term, be helpful to the same cause in Ontario

ht tp://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/17/colby-cosh-mutilating-the-body-to-correct-a-delusion.aspx

[Wiseone26]

not the news alot of girls need to hear

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Albe...04791-sun.html

[Lani]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah


Yah, yah, yah, issues issues, SRS here, SRS there, I know it's always a sad debate.

Anyway, how far am I from the Supreme member title? hayyyyy, still a long way.

I voted for SRS to be in our constitution, period.

[Foxy Basket]

Not cosmetic, not aesthetic, but reconstructive surgery

The biggest problems in this debate are a) the understanding that Gender Identity Disorder is a psychological condition, and b) the belief that GRS is "cosmetic" surgery.

The first point is the trickiest, because GID is listed in the DSM IV. This means people equate it with mental illness, which has a great deal of stigma attached to it. It also means that people think that it can be "cured" with psychotherapy alone.

This is a big part of the problem; people don't realize that psychological conditions can respond positively to physical treatment. Medication for things like schizophrenia and depression is a physical/neurological treatment. Even electro-shock therapy has shown some evidence of being an effective treatment (it only has a bad reputation because it was used as a cure-all for almost everything; the problem was with the doctors who used it, not the treatment itself). So clearly, there are other ways to deal with these issues, other than the "talking cure."

Regardless, there's no proof that psychotherapy alone can significantly alleviate gender dysphoria, but there's a large body of evidence showing that GRS can be effective in certain cases.

The second point would be easier to make if people understood GRS as "reconstructive surgery" instead of cosmetic. That would make the discrimination against trans people more obvious. Can't we all imagine a situation where we might require "reconstructive surgery" at some point in our lives? If it's covered for others, it should be covered for us too.

If GRS was identified as reconstructive surgery to correct a birth defect, others might be better able to accept its inclusion in public health care. The fact that it's listed as something specific to trans people with GID is why so many people see it as a "special interest."

I made a comment on the Xtra.ca article about this, I hope it might help people put things in perspective.

If a cisgender male gets into an accident and his penis is damaged, public health care will cover the cost of reparative surgery. If a cisgender woman has her vagina torn during childbirth, public health care will cover the cost of reparative surgery. That's exactly what GRS is to transsexuals; not cosmetic, not aesthetic, but reconstructive surgery to correct a mistake. Why are we refused coverage for this medical procedure, while others in our society are not?

We're not asking for special treatment or special interest - we're demanding equal access to the health system, which we've been denied for decades. The next time someone says that it's cosmetic, imagine your genitals were badly damaged or defective, through no fault of your own, and your doctor told you, "Oh, we won't cover that. It's only cosmetic, so if you want to fix it, pay for it yourself. But why don't we send you to therapy instead, to make you feel better about it?"

Now do you understand what we go through?

[merelypink]

goverments needs to worry about "important issues"

[cobbler]

goverments needs to worry about "important issues"

To those impacted by the inequalities of the administration of health care this is an "important issue".
That's the whole point of the discussion.

[capitus]

The biggest problems in this debate are a) the understanding that Gender Identity Disorder is a psychological condition, and b) the belief that GRS is "cosmetic" surgery.

The first point is the trickiest, because GID is listed in the DSM IV. This means people equate it with mental illness, which has a great deal of stigma attached to it. It also means that people think that it can be "cured" with psychotherapy alone.

This is a big part of the problem; people don't realize that psychological conditions can respond positively to physical treatment. Medication for things like schizophrenia and depression is a physical/neurological treatment. Even electro-shock therapy has shown some evidence of being an effective treatment (it only has a bad reputation because it was used as a cure-all for almost everything; the problem was with the doctors who used it, not the treatment itself). So clearly, there are other ways to deal with these issues, other than the "talking cure."

Regardless, there's no proof that psychotherapy alone can significantly alleviate gender dysphoria, but there's a large body of evidence showing that GRS can be effective in certain cases.

The second point would be easier to make if people understood GRS as "reconstructive surgery" instead of cosmetic. That would make the discrimination against trans people more obvious. Can't we all imagine a situation where we might require "reconstructive surgery" at some point in our lives? If it's covered for others, it should be covered for us too.

If GRS was identified as reconstructive surgery to correct a birth defect, others might be better able to accept its inclusion in public health care. The fact that it's listed as something specific to trans people with GID is why so many people see it as a "special interest."

I made a comment on the Xtra.ca article about this, I hope it might help people put things in perspective.

It is odd what Health Canada considers 'medically necessary'. Quality of life issues are less clearly defined and left to the provinces to decide whether to fund them or not. If transexuals made up a sizable voting block or were not such a marginalized population this issue would be much more difficult for politicians to ignore. Remember it is the politicians that ultimately decide what to fund and not the healthcare providers.

Were Gender identity issues not in the DSM and given a reconstructive ICD-9 code that still would not be sufficient for provincial governments to consider it for funding. Medical necessity is a grey area when it comes to something other than life threatening health issues.

For example, one interpretation is that anything your family doctor does is considered medically necessary...but if provided by another provider (i.e. physiotherapist, chiropractor, optometrist, podiatrist) it may not be and therefore prone being excluded for healthcare funding.

Other issues are medical necessity for one group is not a medical necessity for another. Gender reassignment surgery is an example of this, as is infertility.

I do not think diagnostic labelling can affect this, only strong concerted political effort at the federal level to change the Canada Health Act will change this such that this care is not on the chopping block everytime a provincial government is required to make significant cutbacks.

I think the removal of the SRS (and many other unfunded issues) are an example of tyrany of the majority.