UN expert warns Australia over whistleblower psychiatrist
The targeting of Dr Jillian Spencer risks chilling an essential debate on the health of vulnerable children
Case to answer
The apparent targeting of the Australian whistleblower psychiatrist Jillian Spencer may breach international treaty rights to freedom of expression and scientific inquiry, according to United Nations independent expert Reem Alsalem.
The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Ms Alsalem has just published the 8-page letter on Dr Spencer’s case which she had sent to the Australian government confidentially through diplomatic channels on February 19.
In her letter Ms Alsalem said she understood that Dr Spencer, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, had faced disciplinary action and dismissal from her hospital in the Australian state of Queensland after going public about the risks of the gender-affirming treatment model for minors.
Without prejudging the facts, Ms Alsalem expressed “serious concern” about the case, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its guarantee of “the right to freedom of expression, including in relation to public-interest speech by professionals and whistleblowers”.
She also invoked “the freedom indispensable for scientific research” under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Ms Alsalem highlighted reports that Dr Spencer had spoken out in “her capacity as a medical professional raising concerns about matters she considers to be of public interest, including the rights and well-being of children”.
Ms Alsalem said this treatment of a psychiatrist engaged in open debate risked “creating a chilling effect on other health professionals’ willingness to raise concerns about clinical practices concerning children experiencing gender distress…”
And this could potentially undermine “the best interests of the child and adversely [affect] the realisation of children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the rights to health and protection from harm”.
Dr Spencer told GCN she was “pleased that [Ms Alsalem] cares enough to intervene and to highlight to the government that the Queensland Children’s Hospital may be breaching international human rights law in their attempts to fire me”.
In March, a complaint against Dr Spencer was referred to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) after she shared on the social media platform X an article from The Australian newspaper. The article reported that Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia had ordered another psychiatrist, Dr Andrew Amos, to cease his social media critiques of the gender-affirming model.
The complainant reportedly cited “fear for their safety” as a result of Dr Spencer’s post and her suggestion that her social media followers petition against “gender-affirming care”.
Against this background, Australia’s National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP), under the leadership of its president Professor Philip Morris, has intervened to advocate “strongly for the right of our medical colleagues to speak without fear or favour on topics of medical importance”.
“We stand up for colleagues who in good faith offer comment and debate about controversial practices, especially when there is a risk of harm to patients,” the NAPP statement said.
“We remind the Medical Board of Australia that respectful professional discourse by doctors should be encouraged on matters of significant clinical and ethical importance.
“Any regulatory action such as censure, restriction, or cancellation of the registration of doctors in these circumstances may give rise to concern that the Board is limiting the capacity of doctors to exercise their freedom of speech and express their views.”
On April 14 the NAPP hosted a webinar by Finnish psychiatrist Professor Riittakerttu Kaltiala, who is a leading clinician and researcher in the international shift away from routine gender-affirming medicalisation of minors.
Her talk—“Medical gender reassignment in minors: Why are we cautious in Finland?”—had been advertised for March 10 by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, but was cancelled after activists complained.
In suspense: For Jillian Spencer, the gender-affirming model crosses a red line
Silent treatment
In her February 19 letter Ms Alsalem put questions and requests for comment to Australia’s government, including any measures taken to ensure “that disciplinary or employment-related measures do not create a chilling effect on health professionals’ and especially whistleblowers’ engagement in public debate concerning the best interests of children experiencing gender distress”.
On X, Ms Alsalem said she had received no reply from Australia. The usual practice is to publish such letters, together with any response, 60 days after they are sent.1
The Special Rapporteur has already put on the public record her concern for the welfare of minors subjected to “experimental, irreversible medical interventions related to gender reassignment”.
In a report last year, Ms Alsalem listed the harms of social and medical transition including “persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few)”.
She noted the co-occurrence of gender dysphoria and autism, and pointed out the particular vulnerability of girls “to the socially contagious stereotyped roles [of gender] as a coping strategy, placing them at risk of erroneously adopting stereotypes as their core identity while experiencing dissociation from their sexed bodies”.
In February’s letter to the Australian government, she raised the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and stressed the importance of “informed consent in decision-making concerning the sexual and reproductive health of women and girls”.
This required access to “evidence-based and unbiased information” about the risks of gender medical interventions.
Ms Alsalem said the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognised “an intrinsic right to life and to full development”. She quoted the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the entitlement of children to “physical and psychological integrity”.
Had it wished to, Australia’s federal government could have forwarded Ms Alsalem’s letter to the state government in charge of Dr Spencer’s employer, Children’s Health Queensland.
Historically whistleblowers in the field of medicine have played a critical role in exposing inappropriate, dangerous and lethal medical interventions, often at great cost to themselves.
I cite a few (of many) examples:
Dr Peter Buxton (USA):
In the 1960’s the US Public Health Service disease investigator, discovered the unethical "Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (1932–1972), where 400 African American men were left untreated for syphilis to study the disease's progression. Dr Buxton leaked the study to the media leading to the publication and terminating of the ‘study’.
Dr. Ron Jones (NZ))
In the 1960s/70s, women with pre-cancerous cervical lesions at a NZ hospital were not given standard treatment to see if the cancer would develop. Jones published the practice which led to an expose and public outrage.
Nurse Toni Hoffman
Worked with Dr. Jayant Patel at Bundaberg Base Hospital where she noticed a pattern of unnecessary and fatal surgeries. Hoffman raised concerns to management for years, which were ignored. She ultimately went to a local Member of Parliament to expose the negligence of "Dr. Death," who was responsible for multiple deaths.
Dr Jillian Spencer
Like many of her predecessor whistleblowers she has been punished for her ethics.
She stands tall and shames those who question her righteousness