11 replies to this topic

[Wino]

These new regulations set by the medical council of Thailand seem like a prudent thing to do. This operation is a life-changing procedure and should not be done on a whim.


By Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation
Published on October 28, 2009

New regulations by the Medical Council of Thailand.



The council moved recently to strictly control sexchange operations and require that transgender people consult a psychiatrist, live as a woman for a year and receive hormone therapy before being such an operation is allowed.


http://www.nationmul...al_30115353.php

[WannaGo]

Wino, on 28 October 2009 - 12:35 AM, said:

These new regulations set by the medical council of Thailand seem like a prudent thing to do. This operation is a life-changing procedure and should not be done on a whim.


By Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation
Published on October 28, 2009

New regulations by the Medical Council of Thailand.



The council moved recently to strictly control sexchange operations and require that transgender people consult a psychiatrist, live as a woman for a year and receive hormone therapy before being such an operation is allowed.


http://www.nationmul...al_30115353.php

Aren't these basically the same requirements as in the States?

[Wino]

WannaGo, on 30 October 2009 - 12:07 AM, said:

Aren't these basically the same requirements as in the States?

I have no idea but I feel this is a step in the right direction.

[lvdkeyes]

These requirements have been in place in the US for more than 40 years.

[Beer Chang]

Good, I think that many girls regret having the chop and IMO good to make it a little more difficult.

[WannaGo]

I have mixed feelings about things like this.

On the one hand, it's good that governments take steps to help ensure that people are given every opportunity to make informed decisions that are in their own best interests.

On the other hand, it always makes me uncomfortable when the government gets involved in protecting us from ourselves, whether it is through the "war on drugs," helmet and seatbelt laws, or requirements like this that set rules for what people are allowed to do to their own bodies.

Here's an example: I live on the Gulf of Mexico, where the waters can be fairly dangerous during storms. When the water gets rough, the county flies double red flags on the beach to warn people not to go in (the county won't pay for lifeguards, even though we are a major tourist destination).

Inevitably, people go in the water despite the flags, or because they're tourists and don't know what they mean. Last year, we had 10 people drown in a two-month period because they went into the water when it was dangerous.

Instead of adding lifeguards, or doing a better job educating tourists about the flags, or even moving the flags so they could be seen better, the county decided to pass an ordinance authorizing the sheriff's department to give tickets to people who swim when the double reds are up. Now, the deputies patrol the beach handing out tickets to anyone swimming when the surf gets rough.

It seems to me that, at some point, you just have to let people do what they are going to do and stop trying to protect them from their own decisions.

But, that said, I'm all for regulations that help people get all the information they possibly could need to help them make good decisions.

[lvdkeyes]

Some of these laws like helmet and seat belt laws not only protect people against themselves, but also protect the rest of us by keeping insurance claims and/or rate lower. The war on drugs is another example, protecting (attempting) others against the drug related crimes.

[Bob]

WannaGo, on 02 November 2009 - 10:28 PM, said:

It seems to me that, at some point, you just have to let people do what they are going to do and stop trying to protect them from their own decisions.

In my view, there's nothing wrong with the government trying to make helpful information available so people have a better chance of making an informed choice (presuming their inclined to do so). I'd have no problem with them posting the red flags and, while some will ignore any helpful information, I'd bet a few less people drowned because the flags were up.

Although perfection is out of the question, the government warnings and regulations do a lot of good. The SEC does protect against some scams, the required labeling on foods do help out a lot of people with allergies, etc. The fact that some ignore the warnings is no reason to stop giving them, at least in my view. You drink safe water in some countries because of governmental regulations and, in some places, you breathe healthier air because of government rules. One could give hundreds of examples.

The seatbelt laws (and other laws about car construction) have saved millions of lives. And, like lvdkeyes notes, I'm totally in favor of the motorsy helmet laws (I am less concerned by some hip dude splashing himself over the pavement than having the taxpayers pay for him to vegetate for the rest of his life).

[Thaifan]

All statements are very valid and that is what I like about this site - we are all free to say what we think. The Civil Libertarians often go too far with their claims for freedom. Yes, free-speech is very important and complaining about taking away peoples freedom of choice is an important freedom but it is
often necessary to protect the majority from the reckless actions of a few!!!

[Wino]

lvdkeyes, on 03 November 2009 - 02:00 AM, said:

Some of these laws like helmet and seat belt laws not only protect people against themselves, but also protect the rest of us by keeping insurance claims and/or rate lower. The war on drugs is another example, protecting (attempting) others against the drug related crimes.

Yes, you are right about laws that protect people against themselves and others. The issue some people have is that the government will go too far. Seat belt and helmet laws do help keep insurance claims down. But what about smoking issues and keeping the medical claims down? What about obese people and keeping those same insurance claims down? How much freedom are we willing to give up? How is a society like Thailand able to manage without helmet laws, mandated wheel chair ramps, car seats for babies, etc? I am really surprised that my generation was able to survive without these helpful laws.

[Bob]

Wino, on 04 November 2009 - 05:39 PM, said:

Yes, you are right about laws that protect people against themselves and others. The issue some people have is that the government will go too far. Seat belt and helmet laws do help keep insurance claims down. But what about smoking issues and keeping the medical claims down? What about obese people and keeping those same insurance claims down? How much freedom are we willing to give up? How is a society like Thailand able to manage without helmet laws, mandated wheel chair ramps, car seats for babies, etc? I am really surprised that my generation was able to survive without these helpful laws.

As long as there are two people on earth, you can't have absolute freedom.

I don't see the problem here (at least in the west). Governments (allegedly representing the people) make rules and laws for various reasons and there are always vigorous debates about how intrusive the rule should be. Those people who advocate no rules are just dreamers, divorced from reality and common sense (just my opinion). So, the issue is not whether we have rules but how far (intrusive, if you will) will a given law go? Well, that's for the legislature to decide and, if you don't like a proposed rule, go gripe about it and maybe you can influence the outcome. Or, if you don't like a rule already adopted, go talk to your representative about introducing a bill to amend or repeal it. Or, if you think a rule actually violates your underlying constitution, challenge it in court. Or, if you don't like the rules some particular politician is advocating, then don't vote for the guy/gal and go support his/her opposition. That's called democracy.

This whole debate reminds me of the gun-nuts (and I'd note I own many guns) such as the NRA who scream bloody murder every time a gun rule is proposed. If (unlikely in most cases) you can get the NRA dude or duddette to calm down and discuss the situation rationally, the issue is never that there should be no rules at all but what are the reasonable rules that ought to be in place. For example only, most (note: not all!) NRA people will accept that not everybody should have a machine gun, bazooka, or thermonuclear weapon. So, the big fight often comes down to some nuance such as whether the government ought to be allowed to ban a particular kind of weapon (such as the cheap "saturday-night" specials or the gun that holds a magazine of 50 rounds)or particular kinds of practices (like having a concealed weapon or shooting game out a car window). I'd note that I have had total disgust with the NRA since it fought the banning of the teflon-coated bullets a decade ago (these teflon-coated bullets, also called cop-killer bullets, were designed solely to penetrate body armor and have zero utility in either hunting situations or target practice); yet, the NRA screamed bloody murder that banning such bullets was a gross infringement of their second amendment rights. Balderdash.

[WannaGo]

Quote

This whole debate reminds me of the gun-nuts...

Not sure I see the parallel here. I don't think anyone's taken a radical position on this. I just said it makes me uncomfortable when the government moves out of the role of helping us to get the information we need and into the role of protecting us from ourselves. Wino pointed out that, in doing so, government can go too far, as government is wont to do. That's a pretty far cry from rejecting any rules.