Hopefully this is seen as a more unbiased source.

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    “What’s unfortunately happened for these young people is that because of the toxicity of the debate, they’ve often been bypassed by local services who’ve been really nervous about seeing them,” Dr Cass said.

    “So rather than doing the things that they would do for other young people with depression, or anxiety, or perhaps undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorder, they’ve tended to pass them straight on to the Gid service.”

    “There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour,” she said.

    Her report added that the “exceptional” toxicity has had a negative impact on the quality and availability of evidence.

    There’s nothing objectionable or controversial in this article, yet it’s getting downvoted to heck. Good object example of how legitimate discussion of the topic is being suppressed

    • CAVOK@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s a sensitive subject that’s hard to talk about. Humility and compassion, as well as a will to listen to understand, is needed by everyone involved.

      • sic_1@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It indeed is. Why is an article of scientists discussing children’s welfare marked NSFW?

        • CAVOK@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Why is an article discussing children’s welfare down-voted to oblivion? I don’t think that’s how down-votes are supposed to be used. However, I put it as NSFW because I knew it would be sensitive and I wanted to give fair warning.