Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, de Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, de Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Dec;24(4):687-699. doi: 10.1007/s11019-021-10023-6. Epub 2021 May 18.
Over the past decades, great strides have been made to professionalize and increase access to transgender medicine. As the (biomedical) evidence base grows and conceptualizations regarding gender dysphoria/gender incongruence evolve, so too do ideas regarding what constitutes good treatment and decision-making in transgender healthcare. Against this background, differing care models arose, including the 'Standards of Care' and the so-called 'Informed Consent Model'. In these care models, ethical notions and principles such as 'decision-making' and 'autonomy' are often referred to, but left unsubstantiated. This not only transpires into the consultation room where stakeholders are confronted with many different ethical challenges in decision-making, but also hampers a more explicit discussion of what good decision-making in transgender medicine should be comprised of. The aim of this paper is to make explicit the conceptual and normative assumptions regarding decision-making and client autonomy underpinning the 'Standards of Care' and 'Informed Consent Model' currently used in transgender care. Furthermore, we illustrate how this elucidation aids in better understanding stakeholders' ethical challenges related to decision-making. Our ethical analysis lays bare how distinct normative ambiguities in both care models influence decision-making in practice and how foregrounding one normative model for decision-making is no moral panacea. We suggest that the first steps towards good decision-making in gender-affirming medical care are the acknowledgement of its inherent normative and moral dimensions and a shared, dialogical approach towards the decision-making process.
在过去的几十年里,人们在使跨性别医学专业化和增加其可及性方面取得了巨大进展。随着(生物医学)证据基础的不断发展,以及对性别焦虑/性别不一致的概念不断演变,对于什么是跨性别医疗保健中的良好治疗和决策也有了不同的想法。在此背景下,出现了不同的护理模式,包括“护理标准”和所谓的“知情同意模式”。在这些护理模式中,经常提到“决策”和“自主权”等伦理概念和原则,但没有得到证实。这不仅体现在咨询室中,利益相关者在决策中面临着许多不同的伦理挑战,也阻碍了更明确地讨论跨性别医学中的良好决策应该包括哪些内容。本文的目的是明确目前在跨性别护理中使用的“护理标准”和“知情同意模式”中关于决策和客户自主权的概念和规范假设。此外,我们还说明了这种阐明如何有助于更好地理解利益相关者在决策方面的伦理挑战。我们的伦理分析揭示了这两种护理模式中存在的规范性模糊性如何在实践中影响决策,以及将一种规范性决策模式置于首位并不是道德上的万灵药。我们认为,迈向性别肯定医疗保健中良好决策的第一步是承认其内在的规范性和道德维度,并采取一种共同的、对话式的方法来处理决策过程。