Human Rights & Chemical Castration

progressives believe chemical castration mandates are a human rights violation for sex offenders and a necessary suicide prophylaxis for mentally ill children

Can we talk about puberty blockers, Canada?

First of all, the endocrine system is not a social media account you can block, nor is it a Netflix show you can pause for a snack. There is no such thing as blocking puberty. There is chemical castration of pubescent humans. We are speaking of chemically castrating children when we speak of puberty blockers.

When you chemically castrate an adult you suppress a mature hormonal axis. When you chemically castrate a child you suppress a developing hormonal axis, you interrupt neuronal proliferation and pruning that takes place at puberty. No studies exist which will tell us the long term effects of this treatment on the developing pediatric brain. That defines experimental.

Chemical castration of children to prevent suicidality is an experimental treatment for which no evidence exists.

Let’s talk about chemical castration, a common remedy in forensic medicine for recidivist pedophiles, despite the weak evidence for its efficacy in reducing recidivism. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes chemical castration for recidivist pedophiles, claiming it violates 8th Amendment rights. The ACLU promotes chemical castration for mentally ill children as life saving medical care.

Do you wonder why a remedy that violates recidivist sex offenders’ human rights has become a necessary suicide prophylaxis for mentally ill children?

Canadian courts cannot force an offender to receive chemical castration, they can order the offender to undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment which may include chemical castration. In R v. Rogers Justice Anderson writes that it violates a person’s Charter rights, poses an unreasonable restraint upon the liberty and security of the person, to force them to take psychiatric treatment or medication. He further states that other less drastic means exist to accomplish the objective in the case, which is protection of the public.

a probation order which compels an accused person to take psychiatric treatment or medication is an unreasonable restraint upon the liberty and security of the accused person. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and, save in exceptional circumstances, cannot be saved by s. 1 of the Charter … a probation order which compels an accused person to take psychiatric treatment or medication is an unreasonable restraint upon the liberty and security of the accused person … In my opinion, it is the protection of the public which is the principal support for an order compelling the compulsory taking of treatment or medication. That is insufficient to save the order under s. 1 of the Charter.  Other less drastic means are available to accomplish that purpose.

Writing in Dalhousie Law Journal, Matthew Kutcher notes that the BC Court of Appeals and the Ontario Court of Appeals have openly criticized the use of chemical castration for recidivist sex offenders because of the mediocrity of available scientific evidence for its utility and efficacy. Yet the BC Supreme Court rejected BC Dad’s calls for a review of chemical castration treatment for his child, a treatment for which available scientific evidence is mediocre and weak. According to the BC Infants Act a minor can make their own health care decisions if they demonstrate understanding and if the health care provider believes it is in the child’s best interest. However, the Canadian Medical Profession remains obstinate and pigheaded in its refusal to accept the latest valid and reliable science on the chemical castration of mentally ill children. A judiciary and medical profession which thinks children can choose to undergo sex change when they feel like it does not have the competence or the ethical capacity to assess whether a child is competent to make medical decisions.

Shouldn’t Canadians question the integrity of a judiciary and medical profession which imposes an invasive treatment for which scant evidence exists because of the impression that such invasive treatment achieve the objective of safety and inclusion?

Matthew Kutcher writes:

The Cochrane Collaboration reveals the negligible evidentiary base for the use of chemical castration to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. This is troubling in light of case law that reveals Canadian courts are relying on expert testimony in support of chemical castration when deciding to grant recidivist sex offenders long-term offender status, thus ensuring the offenders will return to our communities ... A review of these cases makes it clear that expert opinion on whether chemical castration will provide an effective means for preventing recidivism is often central to the decision as to which designation the offender ultimately receives. This judicial focus on chemical castration continues in spite of the fact that both the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Appeals have openly criticized the use of chemical castration because of doubts concerning its utility. Given the limited clinical evidence supporting its use in the sex offender population, it is troubling, to say the least, that this treatment continues to hold sway on judicial decision-making. (p. 212)

Let’s next examine the ethical implications of mandatory chemical castration. The law states that no competent person shall receive medical treatment unless they provide voluntary informed consent (Kutcher 2010). The CMA Code of Ethics says that physicians have a responsibility to respect the rights of the patient to accept or refuse medical treatment and they have a responsibility to provide information to the best of their ability required for patients to make informed decisions. The law says that informed consent requires physicians to explain the treatment, to explain the risks + benefit of the treatment, and then explain what would happen if the patient did not receive the treatment.

Children will kill themselves if you put restrictions on puberty blockers does not sound like a rational response to Danielle Smith’s announcement. It sounds abusive and psychotic. It sounds like emotional blackmail.

Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter and if you don’t transition you will kill yourself do not meet the standard of informed consent. Coercion and manipulation do not meet the standard of informed consent because they force patients into a choice based on fear or based on over emphasis of benefits and suppression of adverse side effects. This constitutes abuse of power and exploitation on the part of the physician. It constitutes medical negligence to violate patients by medically experimenting on them.

In the distant past a twisted + morally depraved doctor performed medical experiments on children with twin siblings. Moral superiority fueled him. Protecting identity fuelled him. We call these children Mengele’s Children, after the doctor who performed the experiments. I wonder, in the future when we look back at this time period in horror, what will we call the current child victims of the Gender Affirming Care Experiments?

Maybe we shall call them Turban’s Children, after the doctor who published all the trashy + weak studies that supposedly provide scientific proof for prescribing puberty blockers for children as harmless suicide prophylaxis.