Details
Description
If SFCU is useful (many clinicians must think that it is because we are still talking about it), would not "No Additional Information Specified" (which a clinician can interpret as "Same as Gender Identity" for clinical purposes) and "Additional Information Specified" be the only necessary and the appropriate indicators? I like the suggestion of "Parameters for Clinical Use" except that it might hide clinically important information in an area of the chart in which no-one ever looks. Maybe, "Additional Information Specified" points to "Parameters for Clinical Use" for more details. We should have somewhere to record the organ inventory (which is going to have to include "organ ABC removed") and genetic information. There are only six viable biological karyotype sexes, as far as anyone knows, but there are also documented chimaera (February 2015 Nature article, "Sex Redefined" ) and myriad clinical conditions that change the generation and interpretation of hormone signals and all sorts of other things that might fall into "SFCU" territory but would not be captured by the proposed value set. I support voting Negative on this section. It seems half baked, even all these years on in the discussion. I mean no offence to everyone who has been working and negotiating hard to get to this point! I also do not offer myself as an expert on any of this
(Comment 9 - imported by: Ron G. Parker)
Attachments
Issue Links
- is voted on by
-
BALLOT-42020 Negative - Ron G. Parker : 2022-Sep-V291 R1 Norm
- Closed
-
BALLOT-42230 Negative - Joan Harper : 2022-Sep-V291 R1 Norm
- Closed
-
BALLOT-42266 Negative - Sheridan Cook : 2022-Sep-V291 R1 Norm
- Closed
-
BALLOT-42302 Negative - Ken Sinn : 2022-Sep-V291 R1 Norm
- Closed