Phenomenological Interview and Gender Dysphoria: A Third Pathway for Diagnosis and Treatment.

Gender dysphoria (GD) is marked by an incongruence between a person's biological sex at birth, and their felt gender (or gender identity). There is continuing debate regarding the benefits and drawbacks of physiological treatment of GD in children, a pathway, beginning with endocrine treatment to suppress puberty. Currently, the main alternative to physiological treatment consists of the so-called "wait-and-see" approach, which often includes counseling or other psychotherapeutic treatment. In this paper, we argue in favor of a "third pathway" for the diagnosis and treatment of GD in youths. To make our case, we draw on a recent development in bioethics: the phenomenological approach. Scholars such as Slatman and Svenaeus have argued that the extent to which the body can (or should be) manipulated or reconstructed through medical intervention is not only determined by consideration of ethical frameworks and social and legal norms. Rather, we must also take account of patients' personal experience of their body, the personal and social values associated with it, and their understanding of its situation in their life: their narrative identities. We apply this phenomenological approach to medicine and nursing to the diagnosis and treatment of GD in youth. In particular, we discuss Zahavi and Martiny's conception of the phenomenological interview, in order to show that narrative techniques can assist in the process of gender identification and in the treatment of youth presenting with GD. We focus on two case studies that highlight the relevance of a narrative-based interview in relations between patients, HCPs, and family, to expose the influence of social ideologies on how young people presenting with GD experience their bodies and gender.

Defending two dilemmas.

Ashley's response to our recent paper argues that a fuller appreciation of the available clinical data, of the rights of children to autonomy, and of the primary purpose of gender-affirming endocrine treatment supports the rejection of both the pathway and consent dilemmas for the treatment of gender dysphoria, as raised in this journal. In this response, we highlight certain misrepresentations of our argument, and defend our conclusions against Ashley's main objections.

Two dilemmas for medical ethics in the treatment of gender dysphoria in youth.

Both the diagnosis and medical treatment of gender dysphoria (GD)-particularly in children and adolescents-have been the subject of significant controversy in recent years. In this paper, we outline the means by which GD is diagnosed in children and adolescents, the currently available treatment options, and the bioethical issues these currently raise. In particular, we argue that the families and healthcare providers of children presenting with GD currently face two main ethical dilemmas in decision making regarding treatment: the pathway dilemma and the consent dilemma.

Inclusivity and diversity: Integrating international perspectives on stem cell challenges and potential.

Regenerative medicine has great potential. The pace of scientific advance is exciting and the medical opportunities for regeneration and repair may be transformative. However, concerns continue to grow, relating to problems caused both by unscrupulous private clinics offering unregulated therapies based on little or no evidence and by premature regulatory approval on the basis of insufficient scientific rationale and clinical evidence. An initiative by the InterAcademy Partnership convened experts worldwide to identify opportunities and challenges, with a focus on stem cells. This was designed to be inclusive and consensus outputs reflected the diversity of the global research population. Among issues addressed for supporting research and innovation while protecting patients were ethical assessment; pre-clinical and clinical research; regulatory authorization and medicines access; and engagement with patients, policy makers, and the public. The InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) identified options for action for sharing good practice and building collaboration within the scientific community and with other stakeholders worldwide.