Stay informed on health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.
Good morning. As you may already be aware, STAT does not engage in April Fool’s Day reporting, but you might notice a playful theme in today’s STAT mini crossword. Give it a try.
Supreme Court rules against conversion therapy ban
The Supreme Court delivered an 8-1 decision yesterday overturning a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy,” a practice where licensed mental health providers attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Earlier, both a district court and the Tenth Circuit appeals court had upheld the ban, citing its regulation of professional conduct. However, the Supreme Court viewed it as regulating speech based on viewpoint, necessitating stricter scrutiny. The case will return to the lower court, likely resulting in the ban being reversed.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, emphasized that “Her speech does not become conduct just because the State may call it that,” in reference to therapist Kaley Chiles who contested the law. He added, “Nor does her speech become conduct just because it can also be described as a ‘treatment,’ a ‘therapeutic modality,’ or anything else.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, arguing that medical regulation inherently requires viewpoint discrimination, referencing the Skrmetti decision that upheld a ban on youth gender-affirming care. She questioned her colleagues’ conclusions, stating that a standards-based healthcare system cannot function without the ability to choose sides.
For further insights into how this ruling may impact medical regulation and LGBTQ+ rights, revisit the story previewing the oral arguments. If you have experienced conversion therapy or have opinions on the decision, contact: [email protected]
Fact-checking Jay Bhattacharya on Vannevar Bush
It’s understandable if the name Vannevar Bush doesn’t immediately come to mind. In 1945, he penned a report for Congress that laid the foundation for the enduring social contract between researchers and the federal government. STAT’s Anil Oza, known for his work in the Polk award-winning series, American Science, Shattered, has a keen interest in Bush. So when NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya mentioned Bush and the “endless frontier” in a recent speech, it caught Anil’s attention.
Bhattacharya asserted that the Trump administration aligns with Bush’s vision of scientific progress. However, Anil notes that the administration has contradicted Bush’s vision in various ways. In scientific communities still affected by revoked and delayed research grants, Bhattacharya’s remarks have sparked backlash and even outrage. Read more to understand the significance of this.
Why PCOS might get a new name
For some time, researchers have expressed concerns over the term “polycystic ovary syndrome,” or PCOS, which describes an endocrinological disorder that can lead to severe pain and infertility. The term is technically inaccurate, as the ovaries do not contain cysts but arrested follicles. Although it is categorized as a reproductive issue, the condition is far more intricate. The push to rename PCOS has been contentious and gradual. Recently, another angle was introduced:
“Is there a male version of PCOS that remains unnamed?” This question was raised by Al Barrus on Reddit last year, reflecting a broader curiosity. Some researchers contend that PCOS should be viewed as a metabolic disease influencing hormone levels, insulin resistance, and more. This implies that when it runs in families, individuals without ovaries could also be affected. Barrus, whose sisters have PCOS diagnoses, exemplifies this scenario. Dive deeper into the complex discussions about renaming PCOS with STAT’s Annalisa Merelli.
What if we’re wrong about medical marijuana?
This question is explored in a First Opinion essay by Kevin Sabet, who heads Smart Approaches to Marijuana, advocating for “a middle road between incarceration and legalization.”
Thirty-eight states and D.C. allow clinicians to recommend medical marijuana for PTSD, but a new systematic review of randomized controlled trials suggests they may be mistaken, argues Sabet. He asserts that “Marijuana is far more dangerous than commonly understood, especially today’s ultra-high-potency products,” labeling the growing acceptance of marijuana use over recent years as “a public health disaster.” Discover more about his viewpoint and the evidence.
Testing the benefit of ‘coaches’ in ketamine therapy
Concluding with more drug-related discussion: The rise of ketamine treatment clinics has sparked debate among providers about whether the drug should be used solely as a pharmacological intervention or paired with psychotherapy or other supervision. While research indicates that the drug alone can provide immediate benefits, some believe there might be more to gain.
STAT’s O. Rose Broderick interviewed Harvard psychiatrist Franklin King about a study he is conducting to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating “coaches” into ketamine treatment. “Coaching comprises many elements found in psychotherapy but offers greater flexibility,” he explained to Rose. Read their discussion on his research, the significance of regulation, and how coaches might compare to traditional psychotherapists.
What we’re reading
-
The wellness community anticipates RFK Jr.’s proposed action on peptides, NPR
-
The hidden messages behind the compliment, ‘You look great,’ The Cut
- The U.S. health IT office’s name and responsibilities have changed, STAT
- Are boys truly in crisis? An analysis of the science amid the rise of the manosphere, Nature
- First Opinion: Congress needs to act to assist patients with ostomies, STAT
