- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,770
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
There are more than 4,000 abnormal physiological and neuropsychological conditions now known to be birth defects, and as medical science progresses in its ability to accurately determine etiology, more abnormal conditions are being added to this list .. and medical scientists are laudably working hard to prevent as many of these birth defects as possible.
Medical science's attempt to prevent one such birth defect, ambiguous genitalia (Ambiguous genitalia: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia), has however garnered more criticism than praise by gay and lesbian political groups because of the side effect of the hormonal treatment to prevent this birth defect: Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality - Los Angeles Times
The condition that is creating the birth defect of ambiguous genitalia in prenatal females is called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH):
The treatment discovered to prevent the birth defect of ambiguous genitalia (but that doesn't actually effectively treat CAH itself) is to administer a hormone prenatally, the steriod dexamethasone, which itself is not without health risks.
But the controversy centers around the side effect of preventing ambiguous genitalia in females: that it also appears to prevent homosexuality:
A major subtext of the discovery of the side effect of this treatment preventing homosexuality is that homosexuality itself, an abnormally occurring condition, may have a similar cause and categorization. As presented in the OP of this thread -- http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html -- current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality is that it is epigentically (not "genetically") inculcated in a seldom occurring hormonal malfunction not too dissimilar from that which can result in ambiguous genitalia, which would clearly make homosexuality itself a birth defect.
Now that political groups exist in support of sufferers of birth defects of many kinds, some to encourage prevention, others to encourage acceptance, these groups will have an affect on medical science efforts to prevent these birth defects.
Some political groups will be instrumental in creating funding for creating methods to prevent their associated birth defect and for improving on such treatments.
Other political groups will actually function to hinder progress in preventing their associated birth defect.
In this situation, gay and lesbian political groups are attempting to prevent the use of dex (dexamethasone) to prevent ambiguous genitalia because they're afraid dex will be misused to prevent homosexuality (do a Google search on "lgbt controversy ambiguous genitalia" for more links).
So ..
Do political groups hinder the progress of medical science in preventing birth defects?
Is it a bad thing that they do?
Is it a good thing that they do?
Should political groups get out of the way of medical science progress?
Or do political groups with an ideological interest in perpetuating a medical condition actually do a good service, like in preventing a rush to treat the condition with a perhaps dangerous/misused drug?
Medical science's attempt to prevent one such birth defect, ambiguous genitalia (Ambiguous genitalia: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia), has however garnered more criticism than praise by gay and lesbian political groups because of the side effect of the hormonal treatment to prevent this birth defect: Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality - Los Angeles Times
The condition that is creating the birth defect of ambiguous genitalia in prenatal females is called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH):
The treatment discovered to prevent the birth defect of ambiguous genitalia (but that doesn't actually effectively treat CAH itself) is to administer a hormone prenatally, the steriod dexamethasone, which itself is not without health risks.
But the controversy centers around the side effect of preventing ambiguous genitalia in females: that it also appears to prevent homosexuality:
A major subtext of the discovery of the side effect of this treatment preventing homosexuality is that homosexuality itself, an abnormally occurring condition, may have a similar cause and categorization. As presented in the OP of this thread -- http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html -- current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality is that it is epigentically (not "genetically") inculcated in a seldom occurring hormonal malfunction not too dissimilar from that which can result in ambiguous genitalia, which would clearly make homosexuality itself a birth defect.
Now that political groups exist in support of sufferers of birth defects of many kinds, some to encourage prevention, others to encourage acceptance, these groups will have an affect on medical science efforts to prevent these birth defects.
Some political groups will be instrumental in creating funding for creating methods to prevent their associated birth defect and for improving on such treatments.
Other political groups will actually function to hinder progress in preventing their associated birth defect.
In this situation, gay and lesbian political groups are attempting to prevent the use of dex (dexamethasone) to prevent ambiguous genitalia because they're afraid dex will be misused to prevent homosexuality (do a Google search on "lgbt controversy ambiguous genitalia" for more links).
So ..
Do political groups hinder the progress of medical science in preventing birth defects?
Is it a bad thing that they do?
Is it a good thing that they do?
Should political groups get out of the way of medical science progress?
Or do political groups with an ideological interest in perpetuating a medical condition actually do a good service, like in preventing a rush to treat the condition with a perhaps dangerous/misused drug?
