Based upon one of the films we watched in class you are to reflect on either the story of David Reimer or Genie, the Wild Child. (Note that if you missed any part you can go to youtube.com to view them.) For your reflection you must summarize the general story. Then you must summarize the theory(ies) studied in the films. In your summarization indicate the type of research and methods used. Lastly reflect on the ethics in the particular case, citing specific guidelines discussed in the prologue of your book, and your insights. This is a 30 point assignment so blog thoroughly and thoughtfully.
David Reimer was born on August 22nd 1965 as Bruce Reimer with his twin brother Brian Reimer. Their parents had decided not to circumcise the boys but rather leave it the way it was. But, the boys soon started developing problems concerning urinating. And, by the time the boys were six months old they were diagnosed with Phimosis. They were referred for circumcision at the age of eight months and on April 27th 1966 both boys were circumcised. However, during the procedure the doctor burnt Bruce Reimers penis beyond surgical repair. This was because the doctors decided to use the undeveloped method of cauterization instead of the original method. Bruce's parents were so distraught about what happen that they took guidance from Dr. John Money, a psychologist from John Hopkin's Hospital in Baltimore Maryland. Dr. Money was slowly becoming a pioneer in the field of sexual development and gender identity and he believed that gender identity was a learned social reaction and not innate. Money told the Reimers that Bruce's penis could not be replaced but he could surgically construct a working vagina and they could raise Bruce as a girl. So, after many months of probing, provoking, and procession the Reimers decided to go ahead with Dr. Money's surgery. So, at the age of 22months Bruce's testicle's were removed and he was reassigned to live as a girl. Bruce was given the name Brenda and his parents began raising him as a female instead of a male. Brenda and her parents went back to see Dr. John Money once every year for follow-up visits but Brenda's male identity of Bruce remained a secret to her. After several visits Money began reporting successful female gender development, and using Brenda’s case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. At the age of thirteen Brenda began saying her visits with money were more traumatic for her than therapeutic so when Dr. Money began pressuring Brenda’s parents about letting him do the surgical vagina construction they discontinued their visits with him. In progress reports on Brenda's case money reported that Brenda was a happy functional working girl and she exhibited no boyish behavior. But, in reality Dr. Money's "perfect" case study was proving him wrong. From the time Brenda first had the surgery she was showing aggressive behavior similar to that of a young boys behavior and throughout her childhood she could not recognize with the other girls nor with the boys. So, at the age of 15 her parents decided to tell her about her secret identity, Bruce. After Brenda found out the truth she began reliving her life as a male again taking on the name David Reimer. In 1997 he underwent surgical treatment to reverse the rearrangement he had received as a baby. David got married to a woman and became a stepfather to her three children and for once in David's life he was happy and everything was fine. But, that only lasted for a very short lived time. David's own twin brother had developed schizophrenia after finding out the truth about Brenda's true identity. And, in 2002 Brian overdosed on antidepressants. David also had to deal with losing his job and on May 2nd, 2004 David's wife told him she wanted to temporarily separate. With his life Spiraling out of control David decided to end his life. So, on May 5th, 2004 David killed himself with a fatal blow to the head with a shotgun in a local grocery store parking lot.
Dr. John Money’s main theory he was trying to support that gender is a learned social reaction and not innate. In this particular case Money was proven wrong even though he still continued to make the world believe he was right. This case is an example of an experimental research because this case had a control variable- David’s identical twin brother-, an independent variable- David’s female identity-, a dependent variable- how David changed from his boy behavior to the girl behavior-, and a an experimental factor- David. This case was considered the perfect experimental case study because David had a twin brother so they could base all the information and reactions they noticed form Brenda to those of his brothers.
With this case brought with it many questions concerning ethnics. In the year 1992 the American Psychological Association stated it was ethical to experiment on people as long as they 1.) obtain the informed consent of potential participants, 2.) protect them from harm and discomfort, 3.) treat information about individual participants confidentially, and 4.) fully explain the research. Based on these four rules about ethics and researching on humans, Dr. John Money’s research was not ethical. Yes, he obtained consent from David’s parents, who were his legal guardians at the time, however, he did not protect David from harm or discomfort, he did not keep the information private, and he certainly didn’t explain the the research fully. There is no way to prove that David was harmed or not protected but both he and his twin Brian have reported that Dr. John Money would make them undress and pose for pictures in provocative stances. When the boys would refused they stated that Money would become so belligerent that they feared for their lives. The boys were so scared that they didn’t tell their parents. The second reason his research wasn’t ethical because he didn’t keep the doctor patient confidentially agreement. Throughout his research Money would “leak” information on David’s case. He did this to advance his career and theory. The final reason it wasn’t ethical is because the research wasn’t fully explained. Money explained the process and research to David’s parent but wanted to keep David in the dark about his true identity. By not telling David about his true identity he broke ethical rule number four because he didn’t explain the full concept of his research.
My views on Dr. John Money's research is that its completely unethical. However, i do some what agree with his theory that gender is a social learned reaction rather than innate. When a person is first conceived the father is responsible for giving the baby a x or y chromosome which determines the baby's sex. Depending on the chromosome the baby receives an instruction "book" for their genetic make up. The "book" is filled with sex hormones (testosterone for males and estrogen for females) and social instructions on how to act. I believe that the sexual instruction "book" determines a person's sex nine times out of ten but like Money i believe that the "book" can be altered. My beliefs aren't as strong as Money's because i also believe in the traditional theory, that gender is innate, also. I believe gender can be altered because there are cases that prove gender can be altered. Transgender's are a perfect example of this. Transgender means that a person is born one sex but does not identify with ones own gender identity but rather the opposite gender. Although, they were born one way their gender identity didn't match their sex. Transgender usually results in a complete sex change ad after that the person is usually happy. Their sex and identity was altered because it did not match up with their innate given one. Another example is a one person home or a home with the same sex parents. Men who grow up in a home with only a mother usually have more feminine aspects to them because that's all they know. Since, there was no father in the home the only role model was the mother(s) so this could cause the person's gender to alter to where they identify better with the opposite sex resulting in either having very feminine qualities or homosexuality. This also works with girls growing up in a house with only a father figure. This doesn't always affect the children's gender but it has been proven that the children's gender identity is usually effected.
