Following a recommendation from the leading organization of plastic surgeons to postpone “transgender” surgery until individuals are at least 19, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced it would align with that advice. However, there was a crucial addition to the statement that raised concerns for some medical watchdogs.
The AMA, which holds significant influence in American healthcare, has consistently opposed legislation aimed at limiting controversial transgender procedures often referred to as “gender-affirming care.” This stance could complicate any shift from their earlier support for such treatments.
Dr. Kurt Miceli, a board-certified psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Do No Harm, remarked, “It’s not surprising the AMA allows itself a bit of flexibility, given its history of resisting government protections for minors against potentially harmful transgender procedures.”
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, referencing a study endorsed by the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that there is not enough evidence to support a beneficial risk-benefit ratio for gender-related endocrine and surgical procedures in youth.
They strongly advised that surgeons wait until patients are at least 19 before proceeding with gender-specific surgeries.
AMA’s Position
The AMA confirmed to National Review that it agrees with ASPS’s findings. However, some critics argue this response misrepresents the society’s actual position.
The AMA stated, “Our colleagues at ASPS found that the evidence supporting gender-related surgery in minors lacks robustness.” In its statement, which was also shared with The Daily Signal, they acknowledged the expertise of surgeons who cater to patients regularly.
“The AMA endorses evidence-based treatment, including gender-affirming care,” continued the statement. “At present, the data for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to draw a definitive conclusion. Thus, the AMA concurs with ASPS that such surgeries for minors should generally be deferred until adulthood.”
Misleading?
Miceli criticized the AMA’s phrasing, pointing out that their suggestion to “generally” delay surgical interventions was not as definitive as ASPS’s position, which did not allow for any exceptions.
He stated, “The AMA’s statement is intentionally vague and misrepresents the ASPS’s unambiguous rejection of all sex-change surgeries for minors.” He further pointed out the AMA’s failure to address the insufficient evidence for endocrine treatments, which ASPS had done. “Being ambiguous on such a vital matter for the safety of American children is unacceptable. The AMA should clarify its stance and reject all sex-change operations for minors outright,” he added.
The American Medical Association’s History
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the AMA launched a “Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship When Evidence-Based, Appropriate Care Is Banned or Restricted.” This task force addresses not just abortion but also anticipates initiatives to counteract restrictions on other appropriate health care, including gender-affirming care. Additionally, it has a committee focused on mitigating barriers to transgender medical treatments.
Inquiries were made to various organizations within the task force about whether ASPS’s position would influence their advocacy. While many did not respond, a few did. The Texas Medical Association reiterated that Texas physicians would adhere to state law on this matter.
Dr. Eric Wargotz, from the Maryland State Medical Society, mentioned they would follow ASPS’s guidance, stating, “We trust their expertise over ours.”
On the other hand, the American Academy of Pediatrics indicated its stance remained unchanged, as Dr. Andrew Racine clarified that their guidance does not advocate for blanket surgeries for minors, emphasizing that decisions about care should be made collaboratively between patients, families, and physicians—not driven by political motives.
HHS Weighs In
The Department of Health and Human Services refrained from commenting directly on the AMA’s position. Nonetheless, a spokesperson relayed that HHS continues to prioritize the protection of children from irreversible harm highlighted in their peer-reviewed report.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed appreciation for ASPS’s updated stance, stating, “We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and endorsing sound science. Their decision aids in safeguarding future generations of American children from irreversible harm.”
