A 12-year-old boy can be given puberty blockers – which have irreversible effects and can lead to sterilisation – without the consent of his father, the Supreme Court of Victoria has ruled.
The court heard last week that the male child has claimed to be female since age seven, and a year later was “diagnosed” with gender dysphoria at the Melbourne Children’s Hospital. He has a feminine name, wears female clothing, and has a preference for girls’ colours.
Both the boy and his mother wanted him to be prescribed with medication to stop the onset of puberty, but the hospital asked the court whether they could supply the dangerous drugs without permission from the father, who has been absent since the boy was one and has a history of violence and substance abuse.
Referring to the boy, named CD in court documents, as “she” and “her” and referring to him as “assigned male at birth”, Judge Melinda Richards wrote: “CD does not yet have capacity to consent to medical treatment, and so her mother (AB) has consented to the treatment.
“Both AB and CD want the Hospital to commence the treatment as soon as possible, consistent with the advice of CD’s paediatrician and her psychologist.
“However, the Hospital is uncertain whether AB’s consent is sufficient. That uncertainty has arisen because: (a) The treatment concerned is the administration of puberty suppression treatment for gender dysphoria, often referred to as ‘stage 1 treatment’; and (b) CD’s biological father, who has had no involvement in her life since she was a baby, is not available to give consent to the treatment.”
Judge Richards found that CD’s doctors as the Royal Children’s Hospital Gender Service strongly recommended treatment with gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa), and said claimed the treatment was “reversible and may be stopped at any time”.
“Her paediatrician’s opinion is that CD is likely to remain stable in her female gender identity, in which case she will also derive long term benefit from having had GnRHa treatment to prevent unwanted and irreversible masculinisation during puberty . If she later becomes unsure about her gender identity, she can stop the treatment,” she wrote.
Judge Richards then ruled that as puberty blockers are not a “special medical procedure”, comparing their use to childhood vaccinations or surgery for a broken bone, the mother’s consent was sufficient.
A comprehensive UK report released earlier this year called the Cass Review warned against the use of puberty blockers for people under 18, resulting in the National Health Service in England changing its policies.
“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” NHS England wrote.
“NHS England recommends that access to [puberty blockers] for children and young people with gender incongruence/dysphoria should only be available as part of research.”
The ruling comes as toddlers are being referred to a gender clinic in Adelaide, where a total of 88 children between three and 10 have been “treated”.
Independent South Australian MP Frank Pangallo spoke out about the special clinic located at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in June, saying there should be a nationwide review of gender centres and the so-called treatments they use.
