For individuals pursuing medically assisted gender transition, gender-affirming surgical treatments, such as oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) and orchiectomy (removal of the testicles), cause sterility, and gender-affirming hormone treatment with medications (i.e., testosterone and estrogen) may negatively impact infertility. The major United States (US) medical associations already endorse fertility preservation (FP) through cryopreservation (i.e., “freezing” egg and sperm) for transgender individuals. Despite these endorsements from the relevant medical societies, medical insurance coverage for FP remains very limited in the US. Given (...) the high out-of-pocket costs for FP services, fertility preservation remains financially out of reach for many transgender individuals who may desire it. We present an ethical justification for universal FP coverage for all transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals who request this option during medically assisted gender transition. First, we argue that gender-affirming medical care is analogous to other medical interventions and treatment regimens that compromise fertility, such as cancer care, and that both types of interventions need to be afforded the same medical benefits and assistance in pursuing fertility goals. Second, we argue that the lack of FP for transgender individuals contributes to the ongoing and profound transphobia and anti-trans bias that has been exacerbated in the past several years across the healthcare landscape in the United States. We argue that the provision of FP coverage for transgender individuals is necessary for clinicians and third-party payers to state their unequivocal support for TGD patients and their healthcare needs. (shrink)

Background Mental healthcare users and patients were described as a particularly vulnerable group in the debate on the burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just what this means and what normative conclusions can be derived from it depend to a large extent on the underlying concept of vulnerability. While a traditional understanding locates vulnerability in the characteristics of social groups, a situational and dynamic approach considers how social structures produce vulnerable social positions. The situation of users and patients in different psychosocial (...) settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been comprehensively considered and ethically analyzed under the aspect of situational vulnerability. Methods We present the results of a retrospective qualitative analysis of a survey of ethical challenges in different mental healthcare facilities of a large regional mental healthcare provider in Germany. We evaluate them ethically using a dynamic and situational understanding of vulnerability. Results Difficulties in implementing infection prevention measures, restrictions of mental health services in favor of infection prevention, social isolation, negative health effects on mental healthcare users and patients, and challenges in implementing regulations on state and provider levels within the local specificities emerged across different mental healthcare settings as ethically salient topics. Conclusions Applying a situational and dynamic understanding of vulnerability allows the identification of specific factors and conditions that have contributed to an increased context-dependent vulnerability for mental healthcare users and patients. These factors and conditions should be considered on the level of state and local regulations to reduce and address vulnerability. (shrink)