Guest post: So used to the mantra
Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on 14 when he knew.
The BBC has gotten so used to the mantra that (clap) trans (clap) kids (clap) are (clap) who they say they are (clap clap clap) that they can’t shake it even when reporting on a story about how the medicine actually doesn’t say that.
Imagine if a report came out that said that it appeared that oncologists were over-prescribing chemotherapy, and that the medical evidence strongly shows that it’s not appropriate in many cases in which it’s being used.
Would the BBC rush to interview cancer patients for their “opinions” on the medicine? No doubt some patients would have opinions (“I had chemo, and I think it saved my life!”), but would they be newsworthy? Would they be relevant to a story about what the medical practice should be?
When mainstream media outlets report on anti-vaxxers, they usually make an effort to draw the contrast. It’s not “immunologists and virologists and public health experts say the COVID vaccines are safe and effective, but American football star Aaron Rodgers says otherwise, so who can say?”
One of my first interests in relation to feminism and medical practice was birth, and there’s an interesting parallel here. Very few women die in childbirth, which is undoubtedly a good thing. The care they receive impacts heavily on how they fare and we have data on this. Despite this, I’m confident that the number of people who will tell you that I/my sister/my wife/my neighbour/my daughter would have died, with absolute confidence is way in excess of who actually would have died. Many will swear that intervention saved their lives, despite evidence showing many of these interventions are being treated more and more as routine, and actually reducing the likelihood of a safe healthy birth in healthy women in labour. So women at minimal risk are treated as potential time bombs, not healthy pregnant women, and the doctor orders interventions “just in case”, which increases the likelihood of further interventions with attendant risks.
Usually, it’s the doctor who tells them they would have died, and this has benefits (intentional or not) for the doctor who bills for the procedure, and looks like a hero who “covered all the bases”.
I don’t say any of this to diminish well meaning doctor’s motivations (many will admit to practising medicine defensively to avoid being sued, and you’re never sued for the csection you did, only the one you didn’t do), nor the experiences of women whose lives were genuinely in jeopardy.