Victorian Supreme Court Rules Puberty Blockers No Different to ‘Any Other Medical Treatment’, affirms single parental consent
Victorian Supreme Court Rules Puberty Blockers No Different to ‘Any Other Medical Treatment’, affirms single parental consent
The ruling comes as welcome relief to Australian parents of transgender children who now have greater certainty about gender-affirming healthcare for their children.
In a judgement handed down earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that puberty blockers for transgender children should be treated like “any other medical treatment” in the sense that they should only require a single parent’s consent. This aligns puberty blockers with other healthcare like vaccinations, surgery to mend a broken bone, or chemotherapy to treat cancer. The ruling in the case known as Re CD is a welcome relief to Australian parents of transgender children who now have greater certainty about gender-affirming healthcare for their children.
The case centred around a 12-year-old girl known as CD, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has been under the care of the Melbourne Royal Children’s Hospital Gender Service for four years. Recently, her doctors recommended the use of puberty blockers as part of her gender transition to temporarily pause the physical changes associated with puberty, which were beginning to cause her significant distress.
However, due to several lingering legal uncertainties stemming from past Family Court rulings, the hospital sought clarification in the Victorian Supreme Court on whether CD’s mother's consent alone was sufficient to proceed with the treatment, as CD’s father has been absent from her life since she was a baby. The court decisively ruled that the mother’s consent was indeed enough.
This decision is a welcome affirmation that doctors should be free to make medical decisions in consultation with their patients and, when necessary, with the involvement of parents. It underscores the deep trust we Australians have in our healthcare system—a system where physicians are trained to provide the best possible care based on the latest medical evidence and in the best interests of their patients.
Justice Melinda Richards, who presided over the case, underlined that there should be no distinction between puberty blockers and other medical treatment requiring parental consent. She noted that past court rulings, which had suggested the need for affirmative consent from both parents, were not binding and should not be seen as creating new legal barriers to care.
“AB’s consent to stage 1 treatment for CD is enough,” Justice Richards stated in her judgment, going on to clarify that needing court approval when one parent is absent would only complicate and delay medically necessary care.
Equality Australia, an advocacy organization that champions the rights of LGBTQ+ people, praised the ruling, noting that it would bring much-needed clarity and peace of mind to families and healthcare providers alike. Emily Gray, Legal Director of Equality Australia, stated, “This ruling clears up four years of confusion and ensures a smoother process for other young people like CD. Hospitals treating young people with gender dysphoria now have the certainty of knowing they can proceed with the care their patients want and need if they have the support of one caring parent and the other is absent.”
“It also reaffirms that costly and stressful court processes have no role to play in these cases unless there are disputes between parents and doctors or within families.”
In a world where transgender individuals’ rights, particularly children, are under attack from people best described as monstrous, it’s heartwarming to see a child win.
Hey, by the way. If you’re enjoying Lucy from Naarm, please take a moment to take myReader Survey. I’ve got some cool plans, and I’d love to hear what you want me to tackle next as part of this ambitious project.