Commentary on Levine: A Tale of Two Informed Consent Processes

This commentary compares two recently published informed consent recommendations for gender dysphoria. One key difference identified is in their assessment of the strength of the evidence base for the gender affirming treatment model. An evaluation of both authors' citations supports the claims of a weak evidence base for the use of puberty blockers and gender affirming hormonal treatments in youth with gender dysphoria. This commentary then reflects on the implications of this. In particular, it asks whether it would be best practice to provide gender affirming treatments for youth only under clinical research conditions, rather than as routine clinical practice.

Automated summary

This commentary compares two recently published informed consent recommendations for gender dysphoria and highlights the difference in their assessment of the evidence base for gender affirming treatment. The evaluation of citations supports the claim of weak evidence for puberty blockers and gender affirming hormonal treatments in youth with gender dysphoria. It then reflects on whether gender affirming treatments should be limited to clinical research conditions rather than routine clinical practice.