Top gender doctor faces complaint
A concerned citizen has called for a regulatory investigation of the conduct of Australian paediatrician Michelle Telfer
The naming of Australia’s most influential gender clinician, Michelle Telfer, as the target of strong judicial criticism has led to a complaint against her lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.
Referencing adverse findings against Dr Telfer in a puberty blocker case decided by Family Court Justice Andrew Strum, the complaint to the regulator cites “alleged breaches of professional standards, potential professional misconduct, and failure to provide sufficient informed consent to patients”.
“I was quite disturbed when I saw the Family Court case and the findings [that were] made,” Burchell Wilson, who sent the complaint in mid-June, told GCN. He said gender medicine seemed “highly ideological”.
He said he had no personal stake in the issue, but was troubled as a citizen about the relatively recent surge in minors seeking medical transition, and the fact that many have mental health problems and autism as co-morbidities, and are unlikely to be capable of informed consent.
“Kids are mixed up, they cotton on to things, and if they’ve got co-pathologies, those should probably be examined ahead of any referral to irreversible medical treatment,” he said.
“I suspect a significant portion of these kids are just gay and confused.”
Mr Wilson watched the ABC Australian Story program that showcased Dr Telfer in 2021, and he came away with the impression that she genuinely believes gender medicine is beneficial.
“I suppose that’s concerning in and of itself, because she’s heavily invested in this emotionally and professionally, and whether that clouds her judgment is a real concern,” he said.
A financial adviser who used to be chief economist at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Wilson admitted he had “limited understanding” of the gender clinic debate, but said he just wants “the people in charge to look at this issue”.
Apart from the protection of minors, he said, “there is a significant amount of taxpayers’ resources involved here, and that demands accountability.”
Up to Ahpra
In partnership with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra), the Medical Board of Australia can impose a range of penalties and restrictions on a doctor. GCN is not suggesting the complaint against Dr Telfer is justified, but simply reporting that a complaint has been made.
It was sent to Ahpra following Justice Strum’s June 5 ruling that the public interest in informed debate favoured the identification of Dr Telfer as the subject of his adverse findings.1 (She had been anonymised as expert witness “Associate Professor L” in the re Devin decision published in April.)
The Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Melbourne, where Dr Telfer is chief of medicine, was also revealed as the would-be provider of puberty blockers to Devin, a 12-year-old gender non-conforming boy.
Dr Telfer held overlapping roles as the campaigning director of the hospital’s gender clinic, first author of its 2018 “gender-affirming” treatment guidelines, and president of gender medicine lobby the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.
In his judgment protecting Devin’s puberty from chemical suppression, Justice Strum criticised Dr Telfer for allowing her self-declared role as an “advocate for trans rights” to trump her duty as an objective expert witness in the case.
He agreed with the view of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the case that Dr Telfer’s commentary on England’s 2020-24 Cass review—the world’s most comprehensive inquiry into treatment of youth gender distress—was “misleading or omitted findings/material that detracted from her opinion,” and was at odds with her obligations as an expert witness.
Justice Strum also noted that Dr Telfer was unable “to point to any empirical or substantive basis” for her opinion that a child’s “gender identity” is immutable and impervious to external influence. And he was critical of RCH’s gender clinic—which he concluded did not offer any alternative to puberty blockers—and its “oddly binary” treatment guideline.
In The Australian newspaper last week, Emeritus Professor of Law Patrick Parkinson said the RCH board should respond to Justice Strum’s findings with “the utmost seriousness”.
“Judges are sometimes critical of expert witnesses, but this was much more than criticism about some details,” Professor Parkinson, an expert on gender dysphoria law, wrote.
“Justice Strum expressed concern about the basis of the RCH’s practices.
“If gender identity in children is not immutable—and the overwhelming evidence from research is that it is not—why would we put primary school children on a pathway to irreversible modifications of their sex characteristics?”
Mr Wilson’s complaint to Ahpra invokes Dr Telfer’s conduct as an expert witness as a potential breach of professional standards.
“Such conduct is inconsistent with [the regulatory document] Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia, which requires practitioners to recognise and work within the limits of their expertise and provide objective, evidence-based advice in legal settings,” his complaint says.
The complaint also says Dr Telfer’s claim in court that intensifying scrutiny of paediatric gender medicine is akin to Nazi persecution “arguably amounts to professional misconduct, as it brings the profession into disrepute and undermines public trust in the neutrality of medical advice in high-stakes contexts involving children.”
And the complaint draws on evidence by Devin’s treating psychologist at the RCH gender clinic, “Dr N”, and by Dr Telfer that the boy might have been influenced by the “rose-tinted” view of puberty blockers that was presented to him.
“This raises a significant question about whether patients (especially minors and their guardians) were given a complete and balanced explanation of risks and benefits; [as well as the disclosure] of long-term uncertainty, including on bone development, fertility, and cognitive impact,” the complaint says.
The Wilson complaint continues: “Justice Strum noted that the child had not been properly assessed for neuro-developmental or psychological conditions before being treated under the gender-affirming model.
“These facts suggest a breach of the duty to obtain genuine informed consent, contrary to Ahpra’s Code of Conduct and the National Law obligations concerning patient autonomy and disclosure.”
Stressing the “gravity” of the Family Court judge’s findings, the Wilson complaint urges Ahpra to investigate Dr Telfer’s conduct.
On June 23, GCN sought comments on the complaint from RCH and Dr Telfer, but there was no reply.
A week after the naming of Dr Telfer by Justice Strum, RCH issued a statement in her defence—
“Associate Professor Michelle Telfer is a highly respected paediatrician, expert in adolescent medicine, and fierce advocate for the health and wellbeing of all children and young people.
“Throughout her career, [her] leadership has been instrumental in improving the research and clinical care of all children, in particular trans or gender-diverse children and adolescents, and those experiencing gender dysphoria.”
GCN does not dispute that gender-affirming clinicians believe their treatment approach helps vulnerable youth
Ahpra acknowledged receipt of the Mr Wilson’s complaint on June 17.
Thank you, Mr Wilson.
Bad Medicine
Despite major advances in Western medicine, the discipline continues to support therapies without robust evidence of safety and efficacy—Below, I highlight three relatively recent examples of approved interventions that were introduced without adequate oversight. The third example, alarmingly, continues to be widely endorsed.
1. The Intravaginal Sling (IVS)
(Referenced previously in GCN)
Developed in Australia during the 1980s, the IVS was intended to treat pelvic floor dysfunction in women post-childbirth. Promoted by the Australian Medical Association (AMA), it was rapidly adopted internationally. Over time, however, severe and irreversible complications began to emerge. The widespread harm led to a global medical scandal and billions of dollars in legal settlements. The IVS is now a cautionary tale of premature endorsement.
2. The U.S. Opioid Epidemic
In the 1990s, Purdue Pharma launched an aggressive campaign to market OxyContin, falsely claiming that opioids could manage pain without risk of addiction. This claim—something even early-stage medical students would question—was nevertheless approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The medical community followed suit. By 2022, opioid overdoses had claimed the lives of over 110,000 Americans annually. Purdue Pharma was ultimately fined $8 billion and declared bankrupt. The FDA, however, has faced little accountability.
3. The Affirmative Model of Gender Care
Of the examples listed, this may prove the most serious—primarily because it involves irreversible damage to vulnerable children. The so-called "affirmative" model of gender care is currently endorsed by the AMA, various Australian medical colleges including the RACP, and national paediatric hospitals. The model provides children (a cohort heavily burdened with mental health conditions) with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible sterilising surgery.
Long-term studies of the ‘affirmed’ cohort demonstrate elevated suicides rates.