To be fair, I'm on benzodiazepines for my severe social and general anxiety disorder and while recovering from surgery they were withheld by the surgeons because as a general rule they shouldn't be taken with narcotics and I was in withdrawal from them (which is more dangerous) until I got home. And the surgeons were real dicks about it wanting me to stop taking them even after going home despite the danger.Dragon Angel wrote:The hospital visit wasn't even related to transition, though. It was a hospital visit to investigate the causes of extreme pain I'd been having. The hormones only came up when they'd asked me for a standard medicine listing and I told them I was transitioning, and had been for several years. It was asked the day after an endoscopy found what might have been causing much of it.FireNexus wrote:That's almost certainly what it is. If a whole chain of doctors just assumed that you were fully informed by the previous doctors, and thus all failed to inform you adequately of the potential risks and complications due to the initial failure, they'd be guilty of allowing you to give uninformed consent for an invasive, irreversible, set of elective medical procedures. One which involves large scale endocrine and genital alteration, and which probably has (thought i lack a detailed knowledge) a greater than zero rate of serious biological and/or psychological complications.mr friendly guy wrote:It might be a "defensive medicine thing." Its harder for someone to come back and accuse the doctor of not warning them about x,y,z if they actually did say x,y,z.
Moreover, those continued warnings aren't really for the kind of person who can gain an adequate understanding of the medical risks through self-study. They're for people who are too stupid to ever be able to teach themselves correctly, yet still in need of treatments for their transition. Telling patients they haven't met before about the risks is plain due diligence. Not everything that makes you feel judged comes from a place of judgement. They don't know you, they don't know your story beyond some notes in a chart, and they have to make sure they treat you with informed consent.
Much of this depends on how exactly they say it, but just informing you of risks does not imply they want you not to undergo the procedures.
I wasn't in the hospital for anything related to that, yet it came up. I mean, do people who take other meds for other chronic issues get grilled about how dangerous their meds can be, and suggested to stop those meds if they can? (like for example, antipsychotics for psychotic / manic disorders) It doesn't make logical sense, unless that is also standard procedure. Not to mention the warnings about a surgery that probably won't be performed for another year or two at least...
I've also been read the riot act by lunatics with medical licenses about my chronic pain meds when going to the ER for totally unrelated things like when I broke my right hand and the bitch ER doctor refused to give me anything but Tylenol and went on a tirade saying I was on enough pain meds despite ending up with 2 screws in my hand and the hand surgeon giving me more pain meds without me requesting them. I could have gone into fucking shock.
I'm not saying it's the same, but it's similar despite coming from completely different sources of human dickishness.