We need more whistleblowers like Jamie Reed! And it's good to see her lawyer referring to the Nuremberg Code, which gender transition of minors is in direct violation of. One of the principles of the Code is that the fact that a procedure is experimental must be made explicit (which gender medicine certainly doesn't do) and the purpose, nature and duration of the experiment must be made clear (again, not honoured in the practice of gender medicine). The experiment should be stopped if evidence arises of damage being done to the experimental subject—but of course in gender medicine that damage (to the despised sexed body) is the whole point of the treatment.
Furthermore according to the Code, the procedures must have been extensively trialled on animals. Has this happened with gender medicine? Hardly. If it had been it would have become abundantly clear that this whole misadventure is foolhardy and dangerous in the extreme. Can we imagine the outcry from animal activists had this happened? Yet somehow it's OK to commit these abuses on children.
And we haven't even touched on the Nuremberg Code's strict insistence on genuine informed consent. The idea that children can give genuine informed consent, which rests on a full and mature understanding of the risks of experimental treatment—risks involving the loss of adult functions they have never experienced and can't even imagine, and health consequences the young mind can't hope to comprehend, is absurd.
Most people would say children shouldn't be experimented on, period.
And I have no doubt that the same tactics are being used in Gender clinics in Australia.
Thank you for getting so much of it down and reporting it, so we can quote it!
We need more whistleblowers like Jamie Reed! And it's good to see her lawyer referring to the Nuremberg Code, which gender transition of minors is in direct violation of. One of the principles of the Code is that the fact that a procedure is experimental must be made explicit (which gender medicine certainly doesn't do) and the purpose, nature and duration of the experiment must be made clear (again, not honoured in the practice of gender medicine). The experiment should be stopped if evidence arises of damage being done to the experimental subject—but of course in gender medicine that damage (to the despised sexed body) is the whole point of the treatment.
Furthermore according to the Code, the procedures must have been extensively trialled on animals. Has this happened with gender medicine? Hardly. If it had been it would have become abundantly clear that this whole misadventure is foolhardy and dangerous in the extreme. Can we imagine the outcry from animal activists had this happened? Yet somehow it's OK to commit these abuses on children.
And we haven't even touched on the Nuremberg Code's strict insistence on genuine informed consent. The idea that children can give genuine informed consent, which rests on a full and mature understanding of the risks of experimental treatment—risks involving the loss of adult functions they have never experienced and can't even imagine, and health consequences the young mind can't hope to comprehend, is absurd.
Most people would say children shouldn't be experimented on, period.