The plainspoken doubt being expressed indirectly / by-analogy here is:

“Was their professional judgment impaired by their fetish?”

That concern is the correct one.

But: It doesn’t particularly matter how the fetish works, because people will assume that the existence of a fetish guarantees that judgment is compromised. That assumption will often be couched in terms of skepticism and doubt rather than as a flat statement of mistrust, especially here in the US. Unfortunately, the concern is valid, even when the frequent-but-not-always underlying assumption is not.

Has the licensing board ruled on whether or not patient abuse occurred yet?

If not, then, like, maybe don’t read this article at all. Wait for the outcomes of a professional evaluation. Don’t chase this particular ambulance. It’s not healthy to stop and admire a train wreck, and if it ends up not being a train wreck for patients, and professional care was given regardless, then it’s just gossiping about someone making irreversible physical edits to their body — a completely normal event around the world, starting at birth in many cultures, with widespread differences within each around how little/much editing is too little/much. I know HN likes to clamor about slipper slopes, and this is the sort of checkout aisle magazine headline fodder that leads to that:

Should someone who has had breast reduction surgery be permitted to perform them?

Should someone who has had leg lengthening surgery be permitted to perform them?

Should someone who has had a facelift be permitted to perform them?

Should someone who has had a tattoo be permitted to perform them?

Should someone who has had hair removal sessions be permitted to perform them?

Now, replace ‘to perform them’ with ‘to advise patients about them’; does the answer change?

Yes, amputation is ‘extreme’; so are many, many other voluntary (e.g. heart tattoos) and involuntary (e.g. dysphoria-treating surgeries) body edits. The level of concern expressed for the practitioner’s judgment should not be a function of the severity of edit, and we should always be alert for signs of corruption in those practitioners — whether it’s tattoos, leg lengthening, or limb amputation.

▲

pseudo0 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Wait until you find out who helped write the guidelines for those "dysphoria-treating surgeries"...

https://reduxx.info/top-trans-medical-association-collaborat...

	▲	altairprime 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn’t talking specifically about trans dysphoria above, but having had to navigate those guidelines personally, I can certainly attest that they prioritized societal fertility over the needs of US patients. Fourteen letters of approval and two years and $25,000 of professional consulting required (at US cash rates before insurance) to receive a single body edit out of the four required. Cis women who aren’t even trans at all can get next-day breast inflation but must pursue months of paperwork and approvals for breast deflation (and the exact opposite for cis men, too). Tattoos are walk-in and don’t always have sobriety requirements. Religious body edits that permanently impair sexual function are routinely performed at birth without the consent of, and sometimes over the objections of, the newborn’s parents. (This is not a comprehensive list of US body editing biases, just some highlights as examples.) Point being, cultural biases are reflected in body edit difficulties, and each culture has their own biases and stupidities. That should not prevent us from aspiring towards a better future, where body edits are uniformly treated with care, caution, and consent — rather than varying degrees condescension and Gilliam’s “Brazil” levels of bureaucratic bullshit and bribes: https://youtu.be/VveTsyjFlNA This article may have done a terrible job at advancing any useful goals in the field of body editing, but the headline sure is some top-shelf clickbait.