Impossible? We already know detrans/desist individuals who say they wish there had been a better pipeline to therapy had existed 
obviously assessments exist but they're not even in application. Are you actually arguing for fewer assessments? Affirmation only?
-
Hmmm. I sort of see what you're saying, but in cases such as this shouldn't the first priority be to get some sort of intervention/cps/therapy involved first anyway? And again, I don't think the original argument was for abuse to *disqualify* people from treatment.
It may be. And the original argument entails disqualification for abuse, at a higher than current rate (which is -allegedly- 0, so any positive rate would be higher), so it doesn't really matter that it was "about" things besides just disqualification.
-
-
I'm just going off the text in the picture, but it seems to me like it's arguing that teens who have been abused may not be in a good place to make such decisions? I don't think it's a binary between treatment/no treatment, but adding more counselling before reevaluation?
-
It's a subtle obfuscation. It doesn't matter if they're not in a good place to make such decisions because when they go before a doctor it becomes the doctor's decision. That's the nature of gatekeeping. Also the only thing that matters is whether the decision is correct or not
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.