•••
As I watched the rain this weekend, I thought about the smell of rain — so I looked it up.
Petrichor: the smell of rain. “Petr-” comes from the Greek for stone and “-ichor” referring to the ethereal golden fluid flowing through the veins of the Greek gods.
Rain captivates all our senses. The sight and sound of a good thunderstorm can elicit exhilaration or terror. Getting caught in the rain can cause sheer delight or utter misery. And catching raindrops on one’s tongue, while now not necessarily considered healthy, is still a fun childhood game. But it is the smell of rain that reminds us of the rejuvenating possibilities of our precious planet.
Janet M. Czaia, Minneapolis
GENDER CARE
Case-by-case approach required
As a retired physician, I respectfully take exception to the commentary by Dr. Virginia Dale (”The best direction for gender care after Cass Review,” Opinion Exchange, April 26). Dale is correct when she points out the lack of hard evidence that would define clear guidelines in the treatment of the perplexing and challenging area of gender dysphoria. But her plea for our state government to change its present posture of offering legal protections to patients and providers who deal with this vexing problem is misguided. Our profession is dedicated to the principle “First do no harm.” In the matter of gender dysphoria, the lines are blurred and navigating the challenges is a case-by-case matter. No provider who cares for these souls wants to deny care for a person who is so conflicted by their identity issues that they are suicidal. On the other hand, no provider who has exhausted all conservative treatment modalities unsuccessfully — i.e., the patient is still suffering — is pleased when that person submits to gender affirming surgery as a last resort.
Sometimes, however, failure to treat does greater harm. The enlightened position of our state government recognizes that conventional therapy, while not precisely defined, can generally be delivered by those providers who have expertise and patient compassion. The state is trying to remove further obstacles to best care practices by eliminating political restrictions. Conversely, the state is trusting the experts’ knowledge — albeit imperfect — to protect patients from care that is ineffective and potentially dangerous.