The New Cult Of LGBT Packaging Of Child Sexual Mutilation: "Regular People Just Don't Care"

[Silhouette]

The World Health Organization has deemed hormone drugs to be class 1 carcinogens. And before you launch into your LGBT cult talking points

Now this is interesting, can you provide a source so I can read about it? I'm not even sure what exactly defines "level 1" but would be interested to know. No idea what you're talking about with LGBT cult talking points, I've not voiced a single opinion on LGBT issues in this thread yet you seem quite happy to continuously attribute them to me.

A point you continually refuse to confront is: why do MDs require patients to sign waivers for hormone or surgical amputation of vital organs that says "you know this won't really change your gender". And...how is that different in ethical medical practice than requiring a patient to sign a waiver saying "you know amputating your left arm won't cure your athlete's foot"....and then doing it anyway?

Which vital organs? I'd only consider an organ vital if you needed it to survive or function at a reasonable level, if these MDs are doing that then yes it seems like a bad practice.

The urinary tract system, including the genitals attached to eliminate, becomes breached and open to recurring UTIs which can be life threatening (a family member of mine died from one in sepsis). Butchering that region for cosmetic reasons is criminal. And malpractice. Doing so while having the patient sign a waiver that says "you know this won't actually achieve what you want" is double malpractice.

 

[DrainBamage]

The urinary tract system, including the genitals attached to eliminate, becomes breached and open to recurring UTIs which can be life threatening (a family member of mine died from one in sepsis). Butchering that region for cosmetic reasons is criminal. And malpractice. Doing so while having the patient sign a waiver that says "you know this won't actually achieve what you want" is double malpractice.

Well first, let's get the information on WHO saying hormones being class 1 carcinogens, I don't know what that means.

How often do operations involving urinary tract infections cause recurring UTIs? People get infections and other adverse reactions from all sorts of voluntary operations including breast enhancement, tattoos, piercings, liposuction, gastric bypass etc. and those aren't criminal. Were is it criminal anyway, is that a local statute somewhere or a federal law?

 

[Silhouette]

The urinary tract system, including the genitals attached to eliminate, becomes breached and open to recurring UTIs which can be life threatening (a family member of mine died from one in sepsis). Butchering that region for cosmetic reasons is criminal. And malpractice. Doing so while having the patient sign a waiver that says "you know this won't actually achieve what you want" is double malpractice.

Well (1) first, let's get the information on WHO saying hormones being class 1 carcinogens, I don't know what that means.

(2) How often do operations involving urinary tract infections cause recurring UTIs? People get infections and other adverse reactions from all sorts of voluntary operations including breast enhancement, tattoos, piercings, liposuction, gastric bypass etc. and those aren't criminal. (3) Were is it criminal anyway, is that a local statute somewhere or a federal law?

I get the feeling like even if I answer your questions, you will not answer mine. Like you're interested in making this thread about something other than caring about child abuse. Let's do an experiment and see.

1. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf For a guide of known carcinogens to humans. "Estrogen" is in the "E" section. The male equivalent is on page 6 under "Androgenic Steroids". (very interesting guide and I wasn't aware so many things cause cancer, including one they use to treat breast cancer...causes cancer!)

2. Your question reads like gibberish. And is a blatant strawman. The question isn't "operations involving urinary tract infections", it's operations on HEALTHY urinary tracts that seek to amputate and compromise (open to more bacterial/etc. infections) appendages to the urinary tract system. (parenthesis mine)

Many reports have been published on complications arising after SRS (sex reassignment surgery) in FTM (female to "male") and in MTF (male to "female") transsexualism[9–26]. These publications mainly refer to severe complications like urethral fistulae, urethral strictures and meatal stenoses; such complications are easily observed and need further surgical treatment in order to correct them. However, even if the SRS is uncomplicated, some changes in lower urinary tract function can still, theoretically, be expected. Next to the change of urethral length (shorter in MTF and longer in FTM),there is the change in voiding habits, like voiding while standing. Voiding frequency can also change; some incontinence can be expected especially in FTM and even some minor changes caused by subclinical obstruction. In order to investigate these theoretical problems, we designed this retrospective study. It showed that 33.3% and 19.3%, respectively, of the FTM and MTF transsexuals, reported changes in their voiding habits after SRS.Post-voiding incontinence was most frequently reported in the FTM group. At the origin of this problem is the urethral structure which, compared wit ha biological male urethra, is no longer a virtual space but a real space that can trap urine. Furthermore,differences in compliance, with a highly compliant perineal urethra, and a poorly compliant phallic urethra, can cause further pooling of urine. In our surgical technique, the pars fixa of the urethra is reconstructed using flaps from the labia minora and a small vaginalflap, as described by Gilbert [3], Edgerton [32] and Bowman [33]. The pars pendulans is reconstructed by turning the radial forearm flap in a tube shape [27].With this technique, the neourethra creates a siphon,with the lowest part at the level of the junction between the old female urethra exit and the proximal part of the pars fixa of the new urethra. This siphon effect accumulates urine, especially during the last part of voiding when its strength decreases, so that urine pushed to the pars fixa as well as to the pars pendulans of the urethra no longer has sufficient force to exit; thus it comes back into the siphon. Later, during the day, compression of the siphon (by pushing on it roughly at the base of the reconstructed scrotum) can empty it; in our study, 75%of patients who practice this manoeuvre were able to push the urine out.In addition, the urethra is reconstructed from the labia minora (and in a minor way by the vaginal flap)and by the skin of the forearm, each lacking completely any muscular and elastic fibres: this increases the difficulty in the transmission of the urine flow...

..When compared with a normal population, the number of voids per day was not increased, for either the FTM or the MTF population. Patients in both groups, however, reported nocturia. In addition, a high number of urinary tract infections (UTI) were reported,the incidence being 46% and 32%, respectively, in theFTM and MTF groups Impact of Sex Reassignment Surgery on Lower Urinary Tract Function

3. (parenthesis mine) http://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement/article/63254/stuff-nightmares-criminal-prosecution-malpractice
What crimes can a physician commit?

Any action that violates the law—insurance fraud, illicit sexual contact, theft, illegal distribution of narcotics, and tax evasion, to name several—is a criminal offense, whether perpetrated in the course of medical practice or under other circumstances.3 But a physician, by the nature of his (her) work, is in a unique position in regard to the law: When a patient in his care suffers severe or lethal injury, he may face a charge of criminal negligence, manslaughter, or second-degree murder2 (see the glossary of death-related charges)...

...
The practice of medicine is full of uncertainties. There is never a guarantee that the out-come of a medical procedure or treatment will be curative or without risk.

When an outcome is bad, nothing the physician could have done would, in most instances, have averted the catastrophe. On rare occasions, however, a bad outcome is the result of physician negligence; when the patient (or her survivors) believes that a bad outcome was caused by the physician’s actions, they may institute a civil suit for malpractice. Very, very rarely does a prosecutor decide that the facts of a case warrant a charge of criminal malpractice...

http://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement...res-criminal-prosecution-malpractice/page/0/1
To understand why some medical actions constitute a crime, first let’s analyze the far more usual redress for a bad outcome—the malpractice suit. To be successful in such a suit, a plaintiff must prove four elements (see “Civil malpractice carries 4 elements”):

• duty (the physician had a duty to render appropriate care to the plaintiff.)
• breach (by acting in a way that does not meet prevailing standards of care)
• damage (plaintiff must show that he or she suffered damage, and)
• causation. (the damage was caused by the physician’s acts or failure to act.)

*****
I'll pause here to discuss the civil qualifications met with "sex reassignment" protocols. Duty was to render APPROPRIATE care. When a physician or surgeon makes the patient sign a waiver for a disfiguring surgery or risking hormone protocol and that waiver says "you know this won't actually solve your problem", the care is INappropriate. So right there the plaintiff has the MD dead to rights. The fact that patients so steeped in delusions as to not be able to grasp the reality of what's between their legs, means the tort is doubly potent. Mentally unsound people cannot consent to contracts or waivers by law.

******* (continued)
The heinous aspects of criminal malpractice

• Willful, reckless endangerment
• Wanton disregard of past negative outcomes
• Lack of timely response
• Improper motive
• Depraved indifference to human life
• Gross negligence
• Intoxication
• Deception
• Unjustifiable risk

***********
If an MD prescribes a hormone therapy or surgical procedure known to cause high risk or harm in either event, for a condition that he knows full well in advance won't be alleviated AT ALL by said risky protocols, and that MD knows from literature that the fallout of those protocols results in no measurable statistical change or cure, and worse, results in harm, with the intent to profit monetarily from said procedures, deceiving said patients with double-speak (offering the protocols known to be harmful...which suggests the MD offers them as "curative" when in fact he knows they are not, evidenced by the waiver he has patients sign saying "you know this won't really do what you want"), putting said patients at unjustifiable risk, means said MD is guilty of criminal malpractice.

Now, will you address my points about the part just above here in bold?

 

[DrainBamage]

I get the feeling like even if I answer your questions, you will not answer mine. Like you're interested in making this thread about something other than caring about child abuse. Let's do an experiment and see.

Not at all, you're the one making these claims and when someone rolls along using dramatic words like "butchering" everyone has a right to a healthy dose of skepticism. Clearly I should have a thorough understanding of the scenario you describe to adhere to your constant demands (and assumptions) about whether I agree with it.

. The question isn't "operations involving urinary tract infections", it's operations on HEALTHY urinary tracts that seek to amputate and compromise (open to more bacterial/etc. infections) appendages to the urinary tract system. (parenthesis mine)

Someone who has breast augmentation doesn't have healthy breasts? Someone who has gastric bypass surgery doesn't have a healthy stomach?

It seems you're advocating removing other people's choice to get medical procedures on healthy body parts because of risk, but at what point are you just trying to have the government control people's lives? Should we also ban free style rock climbing?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this level of big government control over our private lives like you are.

I'll pause here to discuss the civil qualifications met with "sex reassignment" protocols. Duty was to render APPROPRIATE care. When a physician or surgeon makes the patient sign a waiver for a disfiguring surgery or risking hormone protocol and that waiver says "you know this won't actually solve your problem", the care is INappropriate. So right there the plaintiff has the MD dead to rights. The fact that patients so steeped in delusions as to not be able to grasp the reality of what's between their legs, means the tort is doubly potent. Mentally unsound people cannot consent to contracts or waivers by law.

Hmm I'm not sure this waiver you're obsessing over qualifies free choice by patients and agreement by the doctor as being inappropriate care, it is just legal protection not some warning that the surgery won't make them happier with their bodies. If gender reassignment surgery makes someone happier with their life as person of whatever gender then it was beneficial, and you'd have a hard time quantifying benefits versus risks to prove conclusively it was inappropriate care from the benefit/risk equation.

I'm not lawyer but I suspect there is a much higher bar for "mentally unsound" than someone on a message board who thinks others are delusional. There are all sorts of conditions recognized as mental disorders and it doesn't put a blanket ban on their ability to sign waivers or consent to contracts. Can someone with social anxiety disorder sign a waiver? Can somemone with depression sign a contract? Of course.

offering the protocols known to be harmful...which suggests the MD offers them as "curative" when in fact he knows they are not, evidenced by the waiver he has patients sign saying "you know this won't really do what you want"), putting said patients at unjustifiable risk, means said MD is guilty of criminal malpractice.

Can you post an example of this waiver? I'm having trouble discerning the difference between your assumptions on what patients want and what this waiver says the operation won't do.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not lawyer but I suspect there is a much higher bar for "mentally unsound" than someone on a message board who thinks others are delusional. There are all sorts of conditions recognized as mental disorders and it doesn't put a blanket ban on their ability to sign waivers or consent to contracts. Can someone with social anxiety disorder sign a waiver? Can somemone with depression sign a contract? Of course.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should've clarified better. Someone suffering from delusions would not be able to sign a waiver or contract. Such as, a person who looks between their legs and declares that what's there "doesn't belong there and must be chopped off even at risk to my health"...

Also, I've seen a copy of one form and have posted a link to it in one of my threads. Though I can't seem to find it at the moment, one should use common sense. Any surgeon to cover his ass legally always requires extensive release forms which anticipate any possible outcome where the patient is fully informed "could happen".

On the form I've seen, it said in essence "you realize this procedure won't actually make you a biological male/female." And so, there it is, the smoking gun. Perhaps I should urge you to pray that no such forms exist or have ever existed or have ever been signed by any patient ever before any of these procedures. Because if they have, the MD is guilty of criminal malpractice. Mutilating a person's vital organs unnecessarily for profit, knowing the net result won't change a thing where the root of the problem is (the mind, and they know it) is criminal malpractice.

Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
Delusions are generally categorized in 4 groups: bizarre, non-bizarre, mood-congruent and mood-neutral. Bizarre delusions are strange and implausible, such as being vivisected by aliens, while non-bizarre delusions are possible but unlikely, such as being under surveillance. Mood-congruent delusions are false beliefs that are consistent with the patient’s mood if disordered, such as power and influence with mania and rejection and ostracism with depression. Mood-neutral delusions are not related to the patient’s mood, such as having two heads or one arm. Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22) - Therapedia

....or having a penis and saying it is "wrong and shouldn't be there". A person engaged in such a depth of delusions would not be able to discern nuances in contracts and waivers if gross realities escape their embrace. A person who signs legal forms binding with another who rants about how certain body parts don't belong attached to them, does so at their own legal peril. Especially one doing so for gain, taking advantage of said delusions while acknowledging at the same time that what they're doing for that person/patient "won't really work"....ESPECIALLY onerous if those "doings' result in statistical harm to said patient. Refer to my last post.

These MDs are not only wide-open to losses in civil suits, but equally exposed to criminal malpractice prosecution....especially if the complaint is filed in a conservative district-attorney's office. *ahem*... *nudge nudge*...

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a copy of the release form for CA correctional facility sex reassignment surgery consent: (page 7 of PDF) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJioTFv-rRAhVIzlQKHRerB5IQFgg3MAU&url=http://www.cphcs.ca.gov/docs/careguides/Guidelines%20for%20Review%20of%20Requests%20for%20Sex%20Reassignment%20Surgery%20(SRS).pdf&usg=AFQjCNFqBq9dFw_KdfeESzuKlYkbbMYsnA

Here's a couple excerpts:

1. "Individuals with gender dysphoria can be successfully treated without undergoing complete sex reassignment surgery."

The smoking gun ^^ and....

2. "Hormone therapy will continue to be an important part of your treatment after any approved
procedure for gender reassignment surgery"

Why is that ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Because the person STILL is not the gender they're trying to be. And, those hormones are known to cause cancer the more you take them... and... Please refer to #1 again. If the condition can be treated successfully without undergoing "complete sex reassignment surgery, CA needs to describe to the jury how that is and why it is that the mutilating and dangerous surgeries go ahead anyway?

3. "Surgical risks include bleeding, infection, and accidental injury to structures not intended to be involved in the surgery. For complete sex reassignment surgery the risks include an inability to attain orgasm, lack of vaginal sensation, vaginal closure, poor cosmetic outcome, as well as other complications"

Please refer to #1 again. If the condition can be treated successfully without undergoing "complete sex reassignment surgery", CA needs to describe to the jury how that is and why it is that the mutilating and dangerous surgeries go ahead anyway?

They're busted dead to rights. And if CA is participating actively in such a "therapy" for minors, protecting such therapies legally etc. etc. or by legislation, that means California itself is in violation of federal child abuse statutes. At rock bottom minimum, in the spirit of "we'll withold funding unless you comply" "deranged boys in girls showers at public schools" EO from Obama, the Trump administration can legally withhold, via CAPTA guidelines, from any state that is engaged in protecting or covering for manifest child abuse. *See this and my previous post.

 

[DrainBamage]

Oh, I'm sorry, I should've clarified better. Someone suffering from delusions would not be able to sign a waiver or contract. Such as, a person who looks between their legs and declares that what's there "doesn't belong there and must be chopped off even at risk to my health"...

This doesn't match the definition of a delusion you pasted, it sounds like a preference. You adding an "or" with your personal definition doesn't qualify, especially since I'd guess your degree in psychology came from nowhere. If you pointed to it and asked what it was they'd answer correctly, it's a penis.

Some would say a person who claims Tokyo is gone, laments they'll never be able to see it now, says the people are gone, and talks of secret evacuations of woman and children first is delusional, their beliefs are clearly at odds with reality because Tokyo is still there and there has been no secret evacuation. Should this person no longer be allowed to sign waivers and contracts?

On the form I've seen, it said in essence "you realize this procedure won't actually make you a biological male/female."

I'm not sure this is the motivation of the patients here. They want to look like one and feel more like, but I don't think you've proven any of them believe will change a chromosone.

ESPECIALLY onerous if those "doings' result in statistical harm to said patient. Refer to my last post.

What percentage of the patients have this harm?

These MDs are not only wide-open to losses in civil suits, but equally exposed to criminal malpractice prosecution....especially if the complaint is filed in a conservative district-attorney's office. *ahem*... *nudge nudge*...

I'm not sure they're open to anything, you seem to be leaning on your flawed definition of delusion to build a house of cards that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[DrainBamage]

1. "Individuals with gender dysphoria can be successfully treated without undergoing complete sex reassignment surgery." The smoking gun ^^ and....

People who are overweight and want gastric bypass surgery can successfully be treated with diet and exercise. Let's arrest every doctor who performs this procedure!

Sorry, but having other options doesn't criminalize medical procedures.

2. "Hormone therapy will continue to be an important part of your treatment after any approved
procedure for gender reassignment surgery"

Why is that ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Because the person STILL is not the gender they're trying to be. And, those hormones are known to cause cancer the more you take them... and... Please refer to #1 again. If the condition can be treated successfully without undergoing "complete sex reassignment surgery, CA needs to describe to the jury how that is and why it is that the mutilating and dangerous surgeries go ahead anyway?

The condition of them not wanting a dick dangling between their legs so they feel more like a woman isn't treated with hormones, it is treated with surgery.

Please refer to #1 again. If the condition can be treated successfully without undergoing "complete sex reassignment surgery", CA needs to describe to the jury how that is and why it is that the mutilating and dangerous surgeries go ahead anyway?

Please see response again, without the surgery they still have a dick they don't want, so it can't be successfully treated without surgery.

They're busted dead to rights.

Nobody is busted, you've got failed logic with amateur assumptions on what is considered a delusion and completely misguided notion of what the patients are after with the surgery.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I'm sorry, I should've clarified better. Someone suffering from delusions would not be able to sign a waiver or contract. Such as, a person who looks between their legs and declares that what's there "doesn't belong there and must be chopped off even at risk to my health"...

This doesn't match the definition of a delusion you pasted, it sounds like a preference.

No actually, the definition I quoted and gave a link to in post #145 actually described a delusion as the imagining of extra or missing body parts as "reality" when it doesn't match actual reality. If you imagine you don't have a dick or that it's wrongly attached to you, you're delusional by the very exact definition given, derived from the DSM.

And, therefore, you are legally unable to consent to having it chopped off to treat your mental delusion.

 

[DrainBamage]

No actually, the definition I quoted and gave a link to in post #145 actually described a delusion as the imagining of extra or missing body parts as "reality" when it doesn't match actual reality.

Nope. They aren't imagining that, they are wanting that and believing they are meant to not have it. If you asked 'em if they have a dick they'd say yes, which is correct.

And, therefore, you are legally unable to consent to having it chopped off to treat your mental delusion.

Nope, in your feeble attempts to play amateur psychologist you aren't grasping the definition of delusion.

The person who believes Japan has secretly evacuated Tokyo is far more delusional than someone who believes their dick shouldn't be there since they feel like a woman.

 

[gallantwarrior]

From attacking people for being sexually different from the "norm" to attack circumcision for religious or health reason when all have existed throughout history

Some people really are filled with ignorance and hate

Drugging kids with cancer-causing hormones to soften them mentally for surgical amputation of healthy organs while they have to sign a waiver that says "you know this won't actually change your gender" is not even in the same remote ballpark as people who circumcise their boys to hopefully reduce their chances of harboring venereal disease.

Under a child's desire, doctor's care with parent's permission, unless the child of age, and not at least till puberty. Most of the hormones are reversible if there is a change in the transgender's certainty of identity. Though change of mind is more likely fear of not being accepted and like to result in self abuse and suicide because they can't be themselves, who they feel they really are.
GRS will not happen till they are adults

Time to let the individual and doctors decide what is really best for that person and the public stay out of making medical and mental judgement of people they don't actually know.

If you don't like what others do for themselves and their well being with a doctor's care, don't look or ignore.

It is not your business

Until they demand that I somehow finance their choices

 

[gallantwarrior]

nobody cares about the LGBT community.....and we have 2 genders. Male and female. A certain % of the public will always be k00ks.

The world was never so black and white

But the REAL world is female and male. There are only two plumbing installations, last I looked. Thanks.

 

[Silhouette]

No actually, the definition I quoted and gave a link to in post #145 actually described a delusion as the imagining of extra or missing body parts as "reality" when it doesn't match actual reality.

Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
Delusions are generally categorized in 4 groups: bizarre, non-bizarre, mood-congruent and mood-neutral. Bizarre delusions are strange and implausible, such as being vivisected by aliens, while non-bizarre delusions are possible but unlikely, such as being under surveillance. Mood-congruent delusions are false beliefs that are consistent with the patient’s mood if disordered, such as power and influence with mania and rejection and ostracism with depression. Mood-neutral delusions are not related to the patient’s mood, such as having two heads or one arm. Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22) - Therapedia

....or having a penis and saying it is "wrong and shouldn't be there". A person engaged in such a depth of delusions would not be able to discern nuances in contracts and waivers if gross realities escape their embrace. A person who signs legal forms binding with another who rants about how certain body parts don't belong attached to them, does so at their own legal peril. Especially one doing so for gain, taking advantage of said delusions while acknowledging at the same time that what they're doing for that person/patient "won't really work"....ESPECIALLY onerous if those "doings' result in statistical harm to said patient. Refer to my last post.

Nope. They aren't imagining that, they are wanting that and believing they are meant to not have it. If you asked 'em if they have a dick they'd say yes, which is correct.

What they are imagining in delusion is that their dick doesn't belong attached to their body; hence why they want it cut off. And then an MD tells them "you know you won't really become the other gender and must remain on artificial cancer-causing hormones for life" ...and then goes ahead and cuts their dick off for them anyway....mutilating their vital organs forever and prescribing said cancer-causing hormones for life. The longer a person remains on artificial hormones, the more likely they'll develop cancer from them. Seems an odd protocol for a mental delusion.

There's an ethical problem there. If you cannot see it, you shouldn't be in the business of debating psychology, medicine and law.

Remember our checklist from the previous page on criminal malpractice?

http://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement...res-criminal-prosecution-malpractice/page/0/1
The heinous aspects of criminal malpractice

• Willful, reckless endangerment
• Wanton disregard of past negative outcomes
• Lack of timely response
• Improper motive
• Depraved indifference to human life
• Gross negligence
• Intoxication
• Deception
• Unjustifiable risk

***********
If an MD prescribes a hormone therapy or surgical procedure known to cause high risk or harm in either event, for a condition that he knows full well in advance won't be alleviated AT ALL by said risky protocols, and that MD knows from literature that the fallout of those protocols results in no measurable statistical change or cure, and worse, results in harm, with the intent to profit monetarily from said procedures, deceiving said patients with double-speak (offering the protocols known to be harmful...which suggests the MD offers them as "curative" when in fact he knows they are not, evidenced by the waiver he has patients sign saying "you know this won't really do what you want"), putting said patients at unjustifiable risk, means said MD is guilty of criminal malpractice.

 

[Silhouette]

So the question of this thread is..." what can I do about it? Doesn't a parent have to sue on behalf of their child getting mangled by all this?". "Aren't they the only ones who have standing in a court?"

The answer is "no". Any person has standing to urge and bring suit on behalf of a child they've seen or noticed being abused. In fact, criminally, they must stand up and do something about it. So a court would be hard-pressed to tell anyone petitioning on behalf of saving a minor from child abuse "you have no standing on this matter" when in fact laws exist federally and in states saying they have a mandate to do something about it.

 

[Silhouette]

I bolded the parts in post #153 to emphasize how a complaint could be formed against said MDs..

 

[DrainBamage]

....or having a penis and saying it is "wrong and shouldn't be there".

Nope. That isn't how a scientific definition works, you don't just get to add your own personal attachment to it with an "or" and say that is the new definition.

What they are imagining in delusion is that their dick doesn't belong attached to their body;

Nope. That isn't a delusion, it is a personal preference of them not wanting it. They knew their dick is there, the delusion would be them claiming it wasn't.

There's an ethical problem there. If you cannot see it, you shouldn't be in the business of debating psychology, medicine and law.

Nope. Where is your degree in psychology from? Unless you have some credentials I don't know about you won't win any appeal to personal authority argument dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as shouldn't be debating. You are clearly not a professional in the field either, and your feeble attempts to bend the definition to suit your personal moral code are quite amateurish.

If an MD prescribes a hormone therapy or surgical procedure known to cause high risk or harm in either event

You keep throwing around words like this "high risk" when we both know you haven't a clue how high the risk is compared to other elective procedures, and if the patient's goal is to have their dick removed that is what is they are trying to solve so your claims the condition isn't alleviated aren't true.

Therefore the logic you are using to arrive at your conclusion is faulty. You are some amateur messageboard psychologist and criminal lawyer who greatly overestimates expertise, just like you were an expert in nuclear fallout when you claimed Tokyo is being secretly evacuated. Where did that expertise get you? I saw threads where implied expertise in disease as you claimed if Ebola reached a large city it would be end of days, you were proven wrong there too. I'm sure there are many other instances.

Start learning lessons from all the times you've played expert and been proven foolishly wrong.

 

[aris2chat]

No actually, the definition I quoted and gave a link to in post #145 actually described a delusion as the imagining of extra or missing body parts as "reality" when it doesn't match actual reality.

Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
Delusions are generally categorized in 4 groups: bizarre, non-bizarre, mood-congruent and mood-neutral. Bizarre delusions are strange and implausible, such as being vivisected by aliens, while non-bizarre delusions are possible but unlikely, such as being under surveillance. Mood-congruent delusions are false beliefs that are consistent with the patient’s mood if disordered, such as power and influence with mania and rejection and ostracism with depression. Mood-neutral delusions are not related to the patient’s mood, such as having two heads or one arm. Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22) - Therapedia

....or having a penis and saying it is "wrong and shouldn't be there". A person engaged in such a depth of delusions would not be able to discern nuances in contracts and waivers if gross realities escape their embrace. A person who signs legal forms binding with another who rants about how certain body parts don't belong attached to them, does so at their own legal peril. Especially one doing so for gain, taking advantage of said delusions while acknowledging at the same time that what they're doing for that person/patient "won't really work"....ESPECIALLY onerous if those "doings' result in statistical harm to said patient. Refer to my last post.

Nope. They aren't imagining that, they are wanting that and believing they are meant to not have it. If you asked 'em if they have a dick they'd say yes, which is correct.

What they are imagining in delusion is that their dick doesn't belong attached to their body; hence why they want it cut off. And then an MD tells them "you know you won't really become the other gender and must remain on artificial cancer-causing hormones for life" ...and then goes ahead and cuts their dick off for them anyway....mutilating their vital organs forever and prescribing said cancer-causing hormones for life. The longer a person remains on artificial hormones, the more likely they'll develop cancer from them. Seems an odd protocol for a mental delusion.

There's an ethical problem there. If you cannot see it, you shouldn't be in the business of debating psychology, medicine and law.

Remember our checklist from the previous page on criminal malpractice?

http://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement...res-criminal-prosecution-malpractice/page/0/1
The heinous aspects of criminal malpractice

• Willful, reckless endangerment
• Wanton disregard of past negative outcomes
• Lack of timely response
• Improper motive
• Depraved indifference to human life
• Gross negligence
• Intoxication
• Deception
• Unjustifiable risk

***********
If an MD prescribes a hormone therapy or surgical procedure known to cause high risk or harm in either event, for a condition that he knows full well in advance won't be alleviated AT ALL by said risky protocols, and that MD knows from literature that the fallout of those protocols results in no measurable statistical change or cure, and worse, results in harm, with the intent to profit monetarily from said procedures, deceiving said patients with double-speak (offering the protocols known to be harmful...which suggests the MD offers them as "curative" when in fact he knows they are not, evidenced by the waiver he has patients sign saying "you know this won't really do what you want"), putting said patients at unjustifiable risk, means said MD is guilty of criminal malpractice.

Men have been cutting off dicks since the dawn of history

 

[Silhouette]

Men have been cutting off dicks since the dawn of history

More men yet have been raping women since the dawn of history. Are either appropriate?

 

[aris2chat]

Men have been cutting off dicks since the dawn of history

More men yet have been raping women since the dawn of history. Are either appropriate?

Men that cut of dicks were prized and lived good lives. Rapists were criminals (and should have had their dicks cut off)

 

[aris2chat]

Men have been cutting off dicks since the dawn of history

More men yet have been raping women since the dawn of history. Are either appropriate?

Rapists today can be chemically castrated