Get the health information and medications you need every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.
good morning. As you may already know, STAT does not cover April Fool’s Day. But you might notice that today’s STAT Mini Crossword has a cheeky theme. Try it now.
Supreme Court rules against ban on conversion therapy
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s ban on the practice of “conversion therapy,” referring to any attempt by a licensed mental health provider to change a person’s sexuality or gender identity. Previously, both the district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the ban was valid because it regulates professional conduct. However, the High Court held that the law actually regulates speech based on certain aspects and therefore needed to be subject to further scrutiny. The case will likely be sent back to a lower court, where the ban will be overturned.
“Just because the state might call it so does not make her speech an act,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion, referring to therapist Kayley Childs, who challenged the law. “Also, just because what she says can be described as ‘therapy’ or ‘therapy’ does not make it an act.”
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that medical regulation inherently requires viewpoint discrimination, citing the Scumetti decision that upheld the ban on gender-affirming care for adolescents. “The contrary conclusion of my colleagues is puzzling because a standards-based health care system cannot function unless regulators are allowed to choose sides,” she wrote.
For more information on how this decision could affect healthcare regulation and LGBTQ+ rights, revisit my story previewing oral arguments. If you have experienced conversion therapy or have thoughts about your decision, please contact us below. (email protected)
Jay Bhattacharya fact-checks Vannevar Bush
Forgive me if you don’t remember the name Vannevar Bush off the top of my head. In 1945, he wrote a report for Congress that served as a guiding document for the long-standing social contract between researchers and the federal government. No one likes thinking about Bush, talking about it, and sending custom Slack emojis more than STAT’s Anil Oza. I first wrote about Bush in my Polk Award-winning series “American Science, Shattered.” So when Anil heard that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya mentioned Bush and the “endless frontier” in a recent speech, his ears perked.
Bhattacharyya asserted that the Trump administration is pursuing a vision in line with President Bush’s manifesto on scientific progress. But the administration has worked against the spirit of President Bush’s vision in several ways, Anil writes. Bhattacharya’s comments have sparked backlash and even anger in a scientific community still reeling from the cancellation or postponement of research grants. Read more about why it matters.
Why PCOS has a new name
Researchers have long disputed the name polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which refers to an endocrine disorder that can cause severe pain and infertility. Strictly speaking, there are no cysts in the ovaries, but arrested follicles. And while it’s framed as a reproductive disease, it’s actually much more complex. Still, the movement to rename PCOS has been controversial and slow-moving. Now, another consideration enters the conversation.
“Do you think there’s a male version of PCOS that hasn’t been named yet?” one man named Al Baras asked on Reddit last year. He’s not the only one with doubts. Some researchers argue that PCOS should be considered a metabolic disease that affects things like hormone levels and insulin resistance. This means that if the virus occurs in a family (which it usually does), people without ovaries may also be affected. Barras, whose two sisters have been diagnosed with PCOS, is a typical case in point. Read more about the complex and sometimes secretive debate over the name change of PCOS from STAT’s Annalisa Merelli.
What if I’m wrong about medical marijuana?
That’s the question raised in a new first-opinion essay by Kevin Sabet, who heads Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an advocacy group that promotes a “middle path between incarceration and legalization,” as its website describes it.
Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., allow clinicians to recommend medical marijuana for PTSD. But a new systematic review of randomized controlled trials on marijuana suggests they’re wrong, Sabet argues. “Marijuana is far more dangerous than commonly understood, especially today’s ultra-potent products,” he wrote, calling the increased normalization of marijuana use over the past few decades a “public health disaster.” Read more about his take on the evidence.
Testing the benefits of ‘coaching’ in ketamine therapy
As ketamine treatment clinics proliferate across the country, medical providers are divided over whether the drug should be used strictly as a pharmacological intervention or used in conjunction to incorporate psychotherapy and other types of supervision. Studies have shown that this drug alone provides immediate benefits, but some researchers suspect there may be more benefits.
STAT’s O. Rose Broderick spoke with Harvard psychiatrist Franklin King about research he is working on to test the feasibility of adding psychological support in the form of a “coach” to ketamine administration. “Coaching has a lot of what you get from psychotherapy, but it tends to be more flexible,” he told Rose. Read our conversation about his research, the importance of regulation, and how coaches can compete with traditional psychotherapists.
what we are reading
-
According to NPR, the wellness world is eagerly awaiting RFK Jr.’s promised peptide efforts
-
What I hear when you say to me “You look great”, The Cut
- HHS changes name and authority of U.S. Health IT Office to STAT
- Are the boys really in danger? What science has to say in the age of the manosphere, Nature
- First opinion: Congress should intervene to help ostomy patients, STAT
