Given the right case & a clear-eyed judge, the guideline will be eviscerated.
I think it’s significant that the promised major revision to the guideline was to be led by RCH but following Telfer ceasing to be director of the gender clinic we were told that AusPATH would take charge of the revision, if there ever is one.
How the Australian Standards of Care were ever accepted as a reliable guideline is beyond me. The NHMRC refused to endorse them because none of the studies that they were based on were robust enough. And yet they were published and all Australian gender clinics follow them and refuse to change course despite multiple international jurisdictions either banning or severely restricting treatment advocated by the guidelines.
When, if ever, is Australia going to realise that this is a massive scandal which will only get worse the longer the clinics and or the government sit on their hands and do nothing to stop it.
It is interesting to reflect on an online article in ‘Gender GP’ dated May 24, 2021, titled ‘The lifesaving work of Michelle Telfer.
Contained therein:
To help support this uptick in young people looking to access gender-affirming care Dr Telfer was part of the team that developed the Australian Standards of Care – the first ever clinical guidelines for the treatment of transgender adolescents. These guidelines not only set a model for gender-affirming care both in Australia and around the world, but also help counter the narrative that transgender care for young people is harmful or experimental.
In the near three years since that publication and the comment that the the Australian Standards of Care ‘not only set a model for gender-affirming care both in Australia and around the world’
Things have changed:
Much of the world gender facilities have dramatically distanced themselves from the Australian Standards of Care model:
In Europe the following countries have ceased the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones as well as invasive surgery: France, German, Sweden, UK, Finland, Lithuania, Denmark, and the Netherlands, presumably with others to follow.
In the United States 20 states have banned gender affirming care.
Intuitively there will be an ultimate comeuppance for the “ gender medicine Industry “which will likely be in the form of individual and perhaps class actions, specifically in relation to minors.Those held to account will include not only the clinicians providing “ gender affirming “ medical hormonal intervention, but also include the State Health department bureaucrats who oversee the hosting of the gender clinics. We can only conjecture the fate of the relevant colleges ,in being deemed by future litigants to be deemed to hold some responsibility , as training bodies, to not have firmly repudiate legally obligatory gender affirmative care within the public clinics. The role of the statuary body , AHPRA,
Is claimed to be simply that to be following current legislation, so that body might escape, though has clearly abrogated it’s charter to protect the public ( in this case minors) from harmful or dangerous treatments. So we can ponder, what are the professional qualifications of the AHPRA board, or is there an ethics committee with appropriate medical expertise when we see their failure to act to , at least obtain the intuitive majority view of child and adolescent psychiatrists , with which to inform legislators to in turn act to protect future vulnerable children
Given the right case & a clear-eyed judge, the guideline will be eviscerated.
I think it’s significant that the promised major revision to the guideline was to be led by RCH but following Telfer ceasing to be director of the gender clinic we were told that AusPATH would take charge of the revision, if there ever is one.
How the Australian Standards of Care were ever accepted as a reliable guideline is beyond me. The NHMRC refused to endorse them because none of the studies that they were based on were robust enough. And yet they were published and all Australian gender clinics follow them and refuse to change course despite multiple international jurisdictions either banning or severely restricting treatment advocated by the guidelines.
When, if ever, is Australia going to realise that this is a massive scandal which will only get worse the longer the clinics and or the government sit on their hands and do nothing to stop it.
It is interesting to reflect on an online article in ‘Gender GP’ dated May 24, 2021, titled ‘The lifesaving work of Michelle Telfer.
Contained therein:
To help support this uptick in young people looking to access gender-affirming care Dr Telfer was part of the team that developed the Australian Standards of Care – the first ever clinical guidelines for the treatment of transgender adolescents. These guidelines not only set a model for gender-affirming care both in Australia and around the world, but also help counter the narrative that transgender care for young people is harmful or experimental.
In the near three years since that publication and the comment that the the Australian Standards of Care ‘not only set a model for gender-affirming care both in Australia and around the world’
Things have changed:
Much of the world gender facilities have dramatically distanced themselves from the Australian Standards of Care model:
In Europe the following countries have ceased the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones as well as invasive surgery: France, German, Sweden, UK, Finland, Lithuania, Denmark, and the Netherlands, presumably with others to follow.
In the United States 20 states have banned gender affirming care.
Perhaps it's time for a rethink in Australia?
Intuitively there will be an ultimate comeuppance for the “ gender medicine Industry “which will likely be in the form of individual and perhaps class actions, specifically in relation to minors.Those held to account will include not only the clinicians providing “ gender affirming “ medical hormonal intervention, but also include the State Health department bureaucrats who oversee the hosting of the gender clinics. We can only conjecture the fate of the relevant colleges ,in being deemed by future litigants to be deemed to hold some responsibility , as training bodies, to not have firmly repudiate legally obligatory gender affirmative care within the public clinics. The role of the statuary body , AHPRA,
Is claimed to be simply that to be following current legislation, so that body might escape, though has clearly abrogated it’s charter to protect the public ( in this case minors) from harmful or dangerous treatments. So we can ponder, what are the professional qualifications of the AHPRA board, or is there an ethics committee with appropriate medical expertise when we see their failure to act to , at least obtain the intuitive majority view of child and adolescent psychiatrists , with which to inform legislators to in turn act to protect future vulnerable children