#healthcare ethics | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

28.6 is the average number of monthly visits per US mobile user.

poly-medpharmacy · 4 months

Text

Pharmacy professionals work at the crossroads of healthcare, ethics, and patient safety. Poly-Med Pharmacy digs into the complexities of pharmacy ethics, covering topics such as patient confidentiality, drug errors, and conflicts of interest. As a reputable hospice pharmacy in Los Angeles, California, we set the bar for ethical pharmaceutical operations.

#Ethical Dilemmas #Healthcare Ethics #Pharmacy Dilemmas

0 notes

scottjpearson · 10 months

Text

The Ethics of Pandemics: An Introduction

The Ethics of Pandemics: An Introduction This #newRelease cements ethics lessons learned from the #COVID19 pandemic in preparation for whatever might come next. #BookReview #ScottsBookReview

For most of us, the COVID-19 pandemic was one that we would not choose to relive. Unfortunately, epidemics on a international stage occur with relative frequency, every decade or so. While how to avoid major outbreaks is an important target, so is learning social lessons from COVID so as not to repeat them in the future. In this academic primer, Iwao Hirose seeks to distill such ethical lessons…

View On WordPress

#bioethics #healthcare ethics #pandemic

0 notes

science-lover33 · 8 months

Text

Genetic engineering: CRISPR and beyond

In genetic engineering, we find ourselves amidst a scientific revolution with the advent of revolutionary technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. However, our journey into the intricate landscape of genetic manipulation is far from complete. This post delves into the nuanced world of genetic engineering, exploring cutting-edge technologies and their remarkable potential in shaping the future of medicine and biotechnology.

CRISPR-Cas9: Precision at the Molecular Level

CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary genome editing tool, stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9. It utilizes a guide RNA (gRNA) to target specific DNA sequences, and the Cas9 protein acts as molecular scissors to cut the DNA at precisely defined locations. This break in the DNA prompts the cell's natural repair machinery to make changes, either through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR). CRISPR-Cas9's precision allows for gene knockout, modification, or insertion with remarkable accuracy.

Beyond CRISPR: Emerging Technologies

While CRISPR-Cas9 has dominated the field of genetic engineering, numerous promising technologies have emerged on the horizon. These include CRISPR-Cas variants like CRISPR-Cas12 and CRISPR-Cas13, which offer unique advantages such as smaller size, increased specificity, and targeting of RNA. Additionally, base editing techniques, such as adenine base editors (ABEs) and cytosine base editors (CBEs), enable the direct conversion of one DNA base into another without causing double-strand breaks, expanding the range of genetic modifications possible.

Applications in Medicine

The implications of these advancements are profound, particularly in medicine. Genetic engineering can potentially treat various genetic disorders, from cystic fibrosis to sickle cell anemia, by correcting disease-causing mutations at their source. Precision medicine, tailored to an individual's genetic makeup, is becoming increasingly feasible, allowing for personalized therapies with minimal side effects.

Ethical Considerations and Regulation

As we venture further into the genetic frontier, we must acknowledge the ethical considerations surrounding genetic engineering. The ability to modify the human germline, with implications for future generations, raises ethical dilemmas that necessitate rigorous oversight and regulation. The international community is developing guidelines to ensure responsible use of these powerful tools.

Future Directions and Challenges

While genetic engineering offers immense promise, it is not without its challenges. Off-target effects, unintended consequences, and the potential for creating designer babies are among the issues that demand careful consideration. Researchers and ethicists must work in tandem to navigate this uncharted territory.

References

Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096.

Anzalone, A. V., Randolph, P. B., Davis, J. R., Sousa, A. A., Koblan, L. W., Levy, J. M., … & Liu, D. R. (2019). Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature, 576(7785), 149-157.

Kime, E. (2021). CRISPR and the ethics of gene editing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 22(1), 3-4.

This post only scratches the surface of the profound transformations occurring in genetic engineering. The relentless pursuit of knowledge and ethical exploration will shape the future of this field as we continue to unlock the intricate secrets of our genetic code.

#science #biology #college #education #school #student #medicine #doctors #health #healthcare #genetics #genetic engineering #crispr #ethical genetics

76 notes · View notes

they-are-a-prolife-autist · 1 year

Text

If we as a society have no protection for the weak and vulnerable, no tolerance for the dependent and disabled, and no reverence for the beginning of human, we must accept that we are a society of ableist, ageist, classist, eugenicists, and at least become consistent with our values. If human life suddenly becomes worth protecting and preserving only when not reliant on another person for aid and support, can prochoicers please stop pretending to care about accommodation for disabled people? Especially if they’re gonna turn around and be fine with the fact that abortion has wiped out 80 percent of Down syndrome babies each year, and that without selective abortion the Down syndrome population would be 217,000 people greater in 50 years, and increase which is more than the current Down syndrome population .

#pro life #i am the prolife generation #prolife #prolife feminist #womens rights #actually autistic #roe v wade #politics #prolife feminism #ablism #abortion culture is ableist #down syndrome #abortion is not healthcare #consistent life ethic

241 notes · View notes

stuckinapril · 3 months

Text

honestly crazy how much trial by fire we had to go through for bioethics to find a place in biomedical research. 23 nazi doctors were accused of crimes against humanity during the nuremberg war crime trials. from 1932 all the way through 1972, black american men were (unbeknownst to them) subjects in the phs study of untreated syphilis, and weren't even offered treatment when it became available. the revolting willowbrook trials, where mentally disabiled children were deliberately infected w hepatitis. the jewish chronic disease hospital study, where cancer cells were. on purpose. injected into cognitively impaired patients. fucking wild and crazy and insane. this is why the national act and the belmont report and 38736 other regulations exist. i cannot imagine being a doctor or clinical researcher during that time and just 1000% doing this w no conscience.

#this is why as a pre-med student i try to keep books on bioethics in my rotation all the time #and i'm rly enjoying the history modules i was assigned before i start my neuro hospital internship.#i want to know all this stuff. i want to constantly be questioning review committees.#bc i rly truly care about becoming an ethical physician one day. and currently an ethical clinical research scholar #i don't want to blindly accept what my superiors say like i actually want to know how this stuff works #it's also all super fascinating #the healthcare system is still hella broken these days but it's just in more insidious ways lol #major tangent but i wanted to document all these studies so i could pick up books/articles on them #text

47 notes · View notes

1o1percentmilk · 3 months

Text

Inside, the supercomputer loomed over me, thrumming like a waterfall. Seventy-four sleek black cabinets were arranged in rows; each contained six hundred and forty processors. Pestian and I ambled among the cabinets. Above us, thick cables delivered enough electricity to power a town. Below, hoses carried six thousand gallons of water per minute for regulating the computer’s temperature. I opened a cabinet and felt heat on my face. from The New Yorker - "Can A.I. Treat Mental Illness?" by Dhruv Khullar

that was its pussy

#yap #supercomputers..... infinite sex appeal #pray that i can use this article for my ethics essay ive been hunting for a tech x public health x ethics article this entire week..#im very picky.#ethics of TECH in healthcare - thats like my whole thing

22 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 12 days

Text

By: Bernard Lane

Published: Apr 14, 2024

Nine of the 15 gender clinics in a landmark international survey for the Cass review have admitted they do not routinely collect outcome data on their young patients.

This survey, together with a new evaluation of treatment guidelines for gender dysphoria, gives unprecedented insights into the workings of gender clinics around the world offering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors.

In the 2022-23 survey, six clinics said they “routinely collected some outcome data”: one of these clinics gave no further detail; one noted the number of patients discontinuing treatment; another used measures of quality of life; two were taking part in cohort studies; and the sixth clinic repeated some baseline assessments. Nine clinics acknowledged “not routinely collecting outcome data.”

The report of the survey results1, published by researchers from the University of York earlier this month, identified clinics by country, not name. Of the clinics that took part, Australia and the Netherlands were prominent with five and four clinics respectively.

Poor data collection was central to the controversy over the London-based Tavistock youth gender clinic.

The Cass review had planned to run a data-linkage study—with help from adult gender clinics—to learn the outcomes of the Tavistock’s 9,000-odd former patients.

The missing long-term data would allow clinicians, young patients and parents to make informed decisions about treatment. The review said it was to be the largest study of its kind in the world.

However, six of the seven adult clinics refused to co-operate. One stated reason was that “the study outcomes focus on adverse health events, for which the clinics do not feel primarily responsible.”

Another adult clinic said, “The unintended outcome of the study is likely to be a high-profile national report that will be misinterpreted, misrepresented or actively used to harm patients and disrupt the work of practitioners across the gender dysphoria pathway.”

On April 12, however, The Times newspaper reported that the uncooperative adult clinics had “bowed to pressure to share [the] missing data”.

Mostly medical

In the York University international survey, ordered by the Cass review, all 15 youth gender clinics said they used a multi-disciplinary team, but researchers concluded there was a “paucity” of psychosocial therapy interventions such as psychotherapy or cognitive behaviour therapy. Five clinics did not offer any of these non-medical interventions in-house.

All gender clinics told researchers that “genital reconstructive surgery”—the creation of a pseudo vagina, for example—was “accessible only from age 18.” The youngest age for “masculinising chest surgery” (a double mastectomy) was reported as 16. In fact, there are documented cases in Australia of 15-year-olds approved for transgender mastectomy. Genital surgery is legally available to minors2 in Australia and practised in America.

“Only five clinics reported routine discussion of fertility3 preferences, and only two discussed sexuality4. Finland was the only country to report routinely assessing for history of trauma5,” the final Cass report says in its commentary on the survey.

In separate studies for the Cass review, three independent reviewers evaluated the quality of 21 guidelines for treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.

Included were international guidelines (from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health or WPATH); documents from North America (for example, the 2018 policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics); from Europe (the guideline of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, and Denmark’s); as well as guidelines from the Asia-Pacific and Africa.

“WPATH has been highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York appraisal process to lack developmental rigour,” the Cass report says.

The York researchers chart patterns of “circular” cross-referencing between guidelines to create a misleading impression of consensus in favour of the medicalised “gender-affirming” treatment approach.

“The guideline appraisal raises serious questions about the reliability of current guidelines. Most guidelines have not followed the international standards for [rigorous and independent] guideline development. Few guidelines are informed by a systematic review of empirical evidence [the gold standard for assessing the evidence supporting a health intervention] and there is a lack of transparency about how recommendations were developed,” the Cass report says.

“Healthcare services and professionals should take into account the variable quality of published guidelines to support the management of children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria. The lack of independence in many national and regional guidelines, and the limited evidence-based underpinning current guidelines, should be considered when utilising these for practice.”

The Cass report says it is “imperative” that gender clinic staff be “cognisant of the limitations in relation to the evidence base and fully understand the knowns and the unknowns.”

[ Chart: Number of youth gender clinic referrals over time by country. Source: Cass report ]

Bum steer

Staff at the Tavistock clinic misled patients and parents, or failed to correct their misconceptions, according to a new report from the Multi-Professional Review Group (MPRG) given oversight of treatment decisions from 2021.

These shortcomings of clinicians included playing down the extent of the unknowns of hormonal treatment; not explaining that puberty blockers are being used unlicensed and off-label; not challenging the reassuring but false parallel with the licensed use of puberty blockers for precocious (premature) puberty; not discussing the possibility that blockers will pause or slow psychosexual development; and not sharing figures showing the vast majority of children started on puberty blockers will go on to cross-sex hormones supposed to be taken lifelong.

The MPRG was also troubled by clinical documents showing misunderstanding of “the outcome of physical treatments” on the part of patients and parents.

In the York University study of treatment guidelines for gender dysphoria, only two were recommended for use by all three reviewers. These were recent, more cautious policies from Finland and Sweden. Both followed independent systematic reviews showing the evidence base for hormonal and surgical treatment of minors to be very weak and uncertain. Like the Cass review itself, the 2020 Finnish and 2022 Swedish guidelines recognise that puberty blockers are experimental and should not be routine treatment.

Although all the guidelines in the study agreed on the need for a multidisciplinary team to treat gender-distressed minors, the “most striking problem” shown by analysis of these documents was “the lack of any consensus6 on the purpose of the assessment process”, the Cass report says.

“Some guidelines were focused on diagnosis, some on… eligibility for hormones, some on psychosocial assessment, and some on readiness for medical interventions7.

“Only the Swedish and [the 2022] WPATH 8th version guidelines contain detail on the assessment process8. Both recommend that the duration, structure and content of the assessment be varied according to age, complexity and gender development.

“Very few guidelines recommend formal measures/clinical tools to assess gender dysphoria, and a separate analysis demonstrated that the formal measures that exist are poorly validated.”

Nor was there any consensus on “when psychological or hormonal interventions should be offered and on what basis.”

A survey of staff at the Tavistock clinic, undertaken as part of the Cass review, found specialists divided on whether or not “assessment should seek to make a differential diagnosis, ruling out other potential [non-gender9] causes of the child or young person’s distress.”

Arguing for an ambitious research program well beyond a possible clinical trial of puberty blockers, the Cass report says the field of youth gender dysphoria is one of “remarkably weak evidence” where health professionals are “afraid to openly discuss their views” because of vilification and bullying.

“Although some think the clinical approach should be based on a social justice model, the NHS works in an evidence-based way,” the report says.

“The gaps in the evidence base regarding all aspects of gender care for children and young people have been highlighted, from epidemiology through to assessment, diagnosis10 and intervention. It is troubling that so little is known about this cohort and their outcomes.

“Based on a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence [or dysphoria], the practice spread at pace to other countries.

“Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of [gender-distressed] young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations.”

[ Chart: Age and sex on referral to the Tavistock clinic from 2018-2022. Source: Cass report ]

Who to trust?

The Cass report says the missing evidence “makes it difficult to provide adequate information on which a young person and their family can make an informed choice.”

“A trusted source of information is needed on all aspects of medical care, but in particular it is important to defuse/manage expectations that have been built up by claims about the efficacy of puberty blockers.

“The option to provide masculinising or feminising hormones from the age of 16 is available, but the [Cass] review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18. This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any co-occurring [non-gender] conditions11, building of resilience, and fertility preservation, if required.”

The review stresses that “consent is more than just capacity and competence. It requires clinicians to ensure that the proposed intervention is clinically indicated as they have a duty to offer appropriate treatment. It also requires the patient to be provided with appropriate and sufficient information about the risks, benefits and expected outcomes of the treatment.”

“Assessing whether a hormone pathway is indicated is challenging. A formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is frequently cited as a prerequisite for accessing hormone treatment. However, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have long-standing gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.”

Advocates for the gender-affirming approach assert that detransition and treatment regret are vanishingly rare, whereas suicide risk for those denied medical intervention is claimed to be very high.

The Cass report says: “It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.”

“The percentage of people treated with hormones who subsequently detransition remains unknown due to the lack of long-term follow-up studies, although there is suggestion that numbers are increasing.”

The report cites three reasons why the true extent of detransition is unlikely to be clear for some time—patients who decide medicalisation was a mistake may not wish to return to their former clinic to announce this fact; there is a post-treatment honeymoon period and clinicians suggest it may take 5-10 years before a decision to detransition; and the surge in patient numbers only began within the last decade.

Faced with uncertainty and a lack of good evidence, those with responsibility—from health ministers and hospital managers down to gender clinicians—rely on treatment guidelines supposed to advise on clinical practice according to the “best-available” evidence and expert opinion.

In the York University guideline analysis, the 21 documents were rated on six domains, the key two being the rigour of their development and their editorial independence.

“[Rigour] includes systematically searching the evidence, being clear about the link between recommendations and supporting evidence, and ensuring that health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations,” the Cass report says.

Only the Finnish and Swedish guidelines scored above 50 per cent for rigour. Only these two documents, the Cass report says, link “the lack of robust evidence about medical treatments to a recommendation that treatments should be provided under a research framework or within a research clinic. They are also the only guidelines that have been informed by an ethical review conducted as part of the guideline development.”

“Most of the guidelines described insufficient evidence about the risks and benefits of medical treatment in adolescents, particularly in relation to long-term outcomes. Despite this, many then went on to cite this same evidence to recommend medical treatments,” the report says.

“Alternatively, they referred to other guidelines that recommend medical treatments as their basis for making the same recommendations. Early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society 2009 and WPATH 7th version guidelines, influenced nearly all the other guidelines.

“These two guidelines are also closely interlinked, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations, and acting as a co-sponsor and providing input to drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline. The WPATH 8th version cited many of the other national and regional guidelines to support some of its recommendations, despite these guidelines having been considerably influenced by the WPATH 7th version.

“The circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”

Sometimes these gender-affirming guidelines seek to buttress a strong evidence claim with a citation to a study that is weak or involves a different patient group.

The Cass report notes that, “The WPATH 8th version’s narrative on gender-affirming medical treatment for adolescents does not reference its own systematic review [of the evidence], but instead states: ‘Despite the slowly growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early medical intervention, the number of studies is still low, and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood. Therefore, a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible’.”

Despite WPATH insisting such an evidence review is not possible, this is precisely what health authorities and experts have undertaken since 2019 in several jurisdictions—Finland, Sweden, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Florida, Germany, and University of York research commissioned by the Cass review.

Yet in the 8th and current version of its guideline, WPATH makes the confident statement that, “There is strong evidence demonstrating the benefits in quality of life and well-being of gender-affirming treatments, including endocrine and surgical procedures… Gender-affirming interventions are based on decades of clinical experience and research; therefore, they are not considered experimental, cosmetic, or for the mere convenience of a patient. They are safe and effective at reducing gender incongruence and gender dysphoria”.

But WPATH “overstates the strength of the evidence” for its treatment recommendations, the Cass report says.

1 In the survey, there was one clinic each from Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Northern Ireland, Norway and Spain. The response rate was 38 per cent.

2 In Australia there is no good public data on trans surgery for minors.

3 Early puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones are expected to sterilise young people and may also impair future sexual function.

4 Some sizeable proportion of gender clinic patients might grow up in healthy bodies and accept their same-sex attraction were it not for trans medicalisation, according to testimony from detransitioners, clinicians’ reports and data.

5 Trauma from a history of sexual abuse, for example, or exposure to domestic violence is thought to be among the many possible underlying causes of what presents as gender dysphoria. The Multi-Professional Review Group (MPRG), given oversight of Tavistock treatment decisions from 2021-23, was troubled by the lack of curiosity by the clinic’s staff about the effect of a child’s “physical or mental illness within the family, abusive or addictive environments, bereavement, cultural or religious background, etc.”

6 Critics of the “gender-affirming” treatment approach say it is not mainstream medicine because the “trans child” in effect self-diagnoses while clinicians avoid differential diagnosis and attribute mental health disorders and other pre-existing issues to a “transphobic” society.

7 “In most cases [at the Tavistock clinic] children and parents were asking to progress on to puberty blockers from the very first appointment”, according to the MPRG.

8 In the MPRG’s opinion, the patient notes from the Tavistock “rarely provide a structured history or physical assessment, however the submissions to the MPRG suggest that the children have a wide range of childhood, familial and congenital conditions.”

9 Once referred to the Tavistock, patients typically were no longer seen by child and adolescent mental health services.

10 According to the MPRG, gender dysphoria in the diagnostic manual DSM-5 “has a low threshold based on overlapping criteria, and is likely to create false positives. Young people who do not go on to have an enduring cross-sex gender identity may have met the criteria in childhood. And early to mid-childhood social transition may be influential in maintaining adherence to the criteria. Sex role and gender expression stereotyping is present within the diagnostic criteria—preferred toys, clothes, etc—not reflecting that many toys, games and activities [today] are less exclusively gendered than in previous decades.”

11 The MPRG said it was “notable that until the child and family’s first appointment at [the Tavistock] they have received little, if any, support from health, social care, or education professionals. Most children and parents have felt isolated and desperate for support and have therefore turned for information to the media and online resources, with many accessing LGBTQ+ and [gender dysphoria] support groups or private providers which appear to be mainly ‘affirmative’ in nature, and children and families have moved forward with social transition. This history/journey is rarely examined closely by [Tavistock clinicians] for signs of difficulty [or] regret.”

Critics have described "gender affirming care" - that is, sex-trait modification - as "medical experimentation." This is incorrect. In a medical experiment, you actually collect data and monitor the participants in the experiment. They don't do that. They're cowboys violating all medical ethics - "first, do no harm" - for ideology, money or both.

9 notes · View notes

kisara-kaiba · 3 months

Text

my urge to write a fic where Kisara is a nurse who cares for Seto VS the fact that i myself am a healthcare professional in training and therefore deeply morally opposed to carer-patient relationships

#i know anything's okay when it's fiction really #it's just that years of studying to be a clinical psychologist has instilled such a deep sense of healthcare professional ethics in me #that my brain screams at the mere thought of writing medical staff flirting with a patient

7 notes · View notes

aflamethatneverdies · 4 months

Text

@pilferingapples it is more egregious because all these articles written by Global North academics are talking about decolonising the field of bioethics, they're talking about importance of listening to and recognising research in healthcare from Global South and yet, how do you expect this to happen in the unequal system that persists in academia?? I can easily find articles about bioethics from US, UK, EU, Australia etc. There is dearth of information from Global South and the ones that are published are behind a paywall. The least, the extreme bare minimum these journals can do is make it open access, waive the fees. But, no! All their arguments are for their research papers. No one actually wants to do what they are so eager to publish. And that kinda sucks, imo.

#replies #pilferingapples #i didn't mean to talk about this for so long #i'm frustrated i can't find the articles i need for my presentation tomorrow lolol #and this is my blog so there #also it gives the impression that healthcare is completely awful in Global South there are no guidelines and then there are recommendations #that everyone should just adopt the best practices from Global North and it may be so but it sure feels crummy that every time Global North #is imposing itself like this- oh we're educating the people in Global South on ethical considerations in healthcare #it feels paternalistic #Global North research in healthcare has most of the funding and power like obv #the power dynamics are extremely unequal #and the main concerns of Global South when it comes to bioethics may be different from Global North

8 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 8 months

Text

Ron DeSantis has appointed Tina Descovich, a co-founder of Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group Moms for Liberty, to the Florida Commission on Ethics.

DeSantis announced Descovich’s appointment to the prominent commission on Wednesday (6 September). The appointment is still subject to confirmation by Florida’s Republican-led Senate.

The nine-member panel is responsible for weighing complaints and investigating alleged breaches of public trust against elected and appointed officials as well as state employees.

Descovich wrote on X, formally known as Twitter, that it will be a “privilege to serve the state [she loves] as a member of this commission.”

However, Alejandra Caraballo, an LGBTQ+ rights advocate and civil rights attorney, warned that Descovich’s appointment was dangerous because she would “be able to investigate LGBTQ state employees and allies and systematically remove them from state government.”

DeSantis just appointed the co-founder of an SPLC designated hate group as part of the the Florida Ethics Commission.

Descovich, who previously served on Brevard’s school board from 2016 to 2020, founded Moms for Liberty with Tiffany Justice in 2021 to “stand up for parental rights at all levels of government”, according to the group’s website.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labelled Moms for Liberty an “extremist group” because of its opposition to LGBTQ+ issues, advocacy for book bans and work against racially inclusive curriculums in schools.

“Moms for Liberty activities make it clear that the group’s primary goals are to fuel right-wing hysteria and to make the world a less comfortable or safe place for certain students – primarily those who are Black, LGBTQ or who come from LGBTQ families,” the SPLC’s 2022 Year in Hate and Extremism report stated.

The Florida-based group – which has chapters around the US – helped develop the state’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law and publicly advocated in favour of the legislation, which bans discussions of LGBTQ+ topics in schools.

In July 2022, Moms for Liberty’s Twitter (now X) account was temporarily suspended for violating the social media platform’s rule against hateful conduct with a post criticising California’s gender-affirming healthcare bill.

The post claimed that gender dysphoria is a “mental health disorder” and that “California kids are at extreme risk from predatory adults.”

Moms for Liberty also alleged on social media that “CRT” (critical race theory) and “gender ideology” are “toxic for children.” In another post, the group claimed that “gender identity indoctrination” is “one of the most dangerous threats facing children in America today.”

Moms for Liberty has also been tied to other far-right organisations, and members have allegedly waged campaigns of harassment against school boards or rival parent groups.

In one interview, a Moms for Liberty member said LGBTQ+ kids should be placed in separate classrooms “like children with autism or Down’s syndrome.”

The American Historical Association also has condemned Moms for Liberty’s ‘vigorous’ advocacy of “censorship and harassment of history teachers, banning history books from libraries and classrooms and legislation that renders it impossible for historians to teach with professional integrity without risking job loss and other penalties.”

The Committee on LGBTQ History said the right-wing group “consistently spreads harmful, hateful rhetoric about the LGBTQIA+ community, including popularising the use of the term ‘groomer’ to refer to queer people and attacking the mere existence of trans youth.”