Not just studies. Any major organization "saying" doctors are violating their oath to do no harm by offering GAC?
We are now at 9-0 for the current question and still ZERO supporting info.
See, if these things aren't medically
necessary, many of these treatments violate the oath simply for subjecting these kids to the unpleasant side effects that occur when you give, say, a high-powered drug meant for fighting prostat.e cancer to an 11 year-old boy in the name of "reversible puberty blockers."
The medical necessity of these things is determined through application of the medical ethics "Double Effect" doctrine, which states: "The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm."
If it's not truly medically
necessary but the same effect can be achieved through traditional psychiatric, "Non-Affirming" methods, ethics dictate those must be used.