1. Rodriguez, Carla BSN, RN

Article Content

I am tired of opening the latest AJN and finding liberal viewpoints being presented without respectful acknowledgment of opposing arguments. AJN needs to wake up to the truth that not all nurses share the editors' opinions on debated issues. Nearly half of those who voted in the last presidential election chose a conservative candidate.


The journal's consistently liberal stance is demonstrated in Dalia Sofer's article "Legislators Seek to Limit Options for Transgender Youths" (In the News, May). Drastic measures such as puberty-suppressing hormone treatment and surgical removal of genitalia are presented as acceptable forms of care to be considered for children, despite the fact that some scientists and bioethicists call for caution about such measures.1 Sofer quotes an assistant professor of nursing who warns against such practices as "automatically handing out a princess sticker to a patient whose sex at birth is female."


We do not all share AJN's views on matters such as abortion and transgender youth. At the very least, a balanced approach to such issues would be appreciated.


Carla Rodriguez, BSN, RN


Rockford, MI



1. Bizic MR, et al Gender dysphoria: bioethical aspects of medical treatment. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018:9652305. [Context Link]


AJN editor-in-chief Shawn Kennedy responds:


This was not an opinion article but a news piece describing the actions of states to restrict options for transgender youths. The piece contains the facts about what is happening, with context explaining what the evidence shows regarding consequences and what health professional groups say about the issues.


AJN's mission is "to promote excellence in nursing and health care through the dissemination of evidence-based, peer-reviewed clinical information and original research, discussion of relevant and controversial professional issues, adherence to the standards of journalistic integrity and excellence, and promotion of nursing perspectives to the health care community and the public." We would be remiss if we did not cover changes that would eliminate care for and affect the lives of a large group of individuals.