The Moral and Human Rights Perspectives of Gender Affirmative Surgery

The Moral and Human Rights Perspectives of Gender Affirmative Surgery
Name 
University
Professor
Subject
Date
The Moral and Human Rights Perspectives of Gender Affirmative Surgery
Gender affirmation surgery emerged over 90 years ago in Europe. In the first 50 years of its existence, gender affirmation surgery evolved from a rare treatment with uncertain outcomes to an accepted procedure for medical diagnoses in America and Europe (Mumford, 2023). Today, it is challenging to argue against gender affirmation surgery from a moral or human rights perspective. This difficulty is especially so with the growing empirical evidence suggesting that such procedures are critical for the well-being of transgender people. However, the fact that not all procedures go according to plan means that decisions on gender affirmation procedures should be made by individuals willing to take risks. This scenario means minors should never be subjected to the procedures until they are old enough to give informed consent. Before coming to this conclusion, it is essential to clarify the morality of the practice and explore how human rights apply to the same.
I came across an interesting study that highlighted the demerits of Gender Affirmative surgery (GAS). The prevalence of regret among transgender and gender non-conforming individuals who undergo gender-affirmation procedures (GAS) remains uncertain (Bustos, et al., 2021). The experience of regret has the potential to result in both medical and mental health complications, raising concerns about the suitability of these operations for certain individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of regret among transgender individuals who received gender-affirming surgery (GAS) and examine the characteristics related with this regret. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing a total of 27 studies, which collectively involved 7928 transgender patients who undergone various forms of gender-affirming surgery (GAS). The combined prevalence of regret following  (GAS) was found to be 1%, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from less than 1% to 2%. In total, 33% of individuals got transmasculine treatments, while the remaining 67% underwent transfeminine procedures. The occurrence of regret among individuals who have undergone transmasculine and transfeminine operations was found to be less than 1% (95% confidence interval: less than 1% to less than 1%) and 1% (95% confidence interval: less than 1% to 2%), respectively. A collective sum of 77 individuals expressed remorse regarding their decision to undergo gender affirmation surgery (GAS). According to Pfäfflin's regret classification, a total of 28 individuals experienced light regret, while 34 individuals experienced extreme regret. The majority of individuals expressed evident remorse as per the criteria established by Kuiper and Cohen-Kettenis.
As someone who has witnessed the dangers of gender affirmation surgery, I have developed an opposition to the practice, which means that my views might be biased. Before being judged as discriminatory, it is only fair to understand where my ideas are coming from. Were it not for gender affirmation surgery, my friend would still be alive. My friend was ...