Medical Ideology Threatens Patient Safety

A cardiologist’s warning on child gender drugs exposes the shocking risks being ignored by left-leaning medical policies.

Story Snapshot

A leading cardiologist criticizes the resumption of gender-affirming care for minors at the University of Michigan.
Dr. Venk Murthy highlights cardiovascular risks and the lack of scientific evidence supporting such treatments.
European health authorities exercise caution, while the U.S. continues controversial practices.
Public trust in medical institutions erodes amidst ideological influences and legal scrutiny.

Dr. Venk Murthy’s Concerns

Dr. Venk Murthy, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan, has publicly condemned the university’s decision to resume gender-affirming care for minors. He argues that these interventions, which include puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, present significant cardiovascular risks to young patients. These concerns are compounded by what Dr. Murthy describes as a lack of robust scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of such treatments. His comments come after the university initially paused these procedures following federal directives, only to resume them despite ongoing concerns.

Dr. Murthy’s commentary draws attention to the stark differences between the United States and European nations, where health authorities have taken a more cautious approach. Countries like England, Finland, and Sweden have imposed restrictions or paused these interventions, citing insufficient evidence and potential harm to minors. In contrast, major U.S. medical organizations continue to endorse gender-affirming care, a stance that raises questions about the influence of ideology over scientific integrity.

Legal and Public Trust Implications

The decision to resume gender-affirming care for minors at the University of Michigan has sparked legal scrutiny and public debate. Critics argue that the move undermines both scientific consensus and public trust in medical institutions. The U.S. Department of Justice has already been investigating these practices, and recent reports from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have echoed concerns about the potential harms of such treatments, including infertility and cardiovascular disorders.

Dr. Murthy’s warning serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical responsibilities that medical institutions must uphold. By prioritizing ideology over evidence-based care, these institutions risk alienating the very communities they aim to serve and potentially facing significant legal challenges. The cardiologist’s call for therapy over medical interventions aligns with a growing demand for more comprehensive and cautious approaches to treating pediatric gender dysphoria.

Future of Pediatric Gender Medicine

Looking ahead, the future of pediatric gender medicine in the United States may see significant changes as pressure mounts from both legal entities and public health advocates. The HHS has proposed measures to limit access to gender-affirming care, emphasizing the need to protect vulnerable populations from potentially harmful procedures. As the debate continues, medical professionals must balance the need for compassionate care with the imperative to adhere to rigorous scientific standards.

Great read by the good doc.

“Michigan Medicine’s pause on “gender-affirming care” for minors was prudent, not only scientifically but legally.” https://t.co/4rlmVfXmDK

— Avatans Kumar 🕉 (@avatans) January 17, 2026

The controversy surrounding gender-affirming care for minors highlights the broader societal tensions between individual rights, medical ethics, and public policy. As more experts like Dr. Murthy voice their concerns, it remains crucial for policymakers and medical institutions to reevaluate their approaches, ensuring that the health and well-being of young patients are prioritized above ideological agendas.