Research

Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature.

Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature.

Family Court of Australia Re: Imogen (No. 6) [2020] FamCA 761 (10 September 2020) Parenting – medical procedures – Gender Dysphoria – where Imogen has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, currently takes puberty suppression medication and wishes to move to stage 2 gender affirming hormone treatment – where the father supports Imogen’s wish – where…

Re Imogen (No 6) [2020] FamCA 761 (on AUSTLII) saw the Court called upon to consider the provision of stage 2 hormone treatment to a minor aged 16 years: Imogen, formerly known as Thomas – bo…

This article outlines and critiques the Australian jurisprudence that has addressed whether minors are able to lawfully consent to gender-affirming hormone treatment, with reference to the landmark decision of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. Although the principle of Gillick competency is well recognised in law, the Australian legal developments that apply Gillick to decisions about the commencement of gender-affirming treatment, have taken the principle astray. The approach under Australian law has diverged down a path that does not align with the original reasoning in Gillick, nor its contemporary interpretation. I outline the reasoning in Gillick so that the foundational principles are considered before discussing how Gillick has been interpreted and applied in subsequent cases. I then provide an outline of the key legal developments in Australia relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for gender dysphoria. I undertake a critique of the Australian law in this field and conclude that there is a need for future judicial determination of how Gillick should be applied, not only in the cases relevant to gender dysphoria, but beyond, so that the position in respect of minors’ decision-making is clarified. This is vitally important because the current approach to this issue has potential implications beyond cases relevant to gender-affirming hormone treatment.

This article outlines and critiques the Australian jurisprudence that has addressed whether minors are able to lawfully consent to gender-affirming hormone treatment, with reference to the landmark decision of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. Although the principle of Gillick competency is well recognised in law, the Australian legal developments that apply Gillick to decisions about the commencement of gender-affirming treatment, have taken the principle astray. The approach under Australian law has diverged down a path that does not align with the original reasoning in Gillick, nor its contemporary interpretation. I outline the reasoning in Gillick so that the foundational principles are considered before discussing how Gillick has been interpreted and applied in subsequent cases. I then provide an outline of the key legal developments in Australia relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for gender dysphoria. I undertake a critique of the Australian law in this field and conclude that there is a need for future judicial determination of how Gillick should be applied, not only in the cases relevant to gender dysphoria, but beyond, so that the position in respect of minors’ decision-making is clarified. This is vitally important because the current approach to this issue has potential implications beyond cases relevant to gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Dr. Holly Lawford-Smith | Senior Lecturer in Political Philosophy, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies | Faculty of Arts in conversation with Jane...

A pathway to better outcomes for transgender youth

A pathway to better outcomes for transgender youth

Amazon.com: Dear Imogen You're The Sister I Chose: Friendship Journal , funny personalized gift for friends women , for friendship day , 8,5x11" , 120 pages: Journals, Nolok: Books

991 likes, 4 comments - imogencaldwellAugust 14, 2023 on : "Beach day baby 💦 If you're in the market for a birth - 4 year car seat, @maxicosi_au have you covered. The Pria is the most compact on..."

This Article explores a basic question of precedent formation: When a majority of the Supreme Court cannot agree on a rule of decision, can...

Stare decisis, a bedrock principle of the American legal system, is sometimes ignored. Stealth overrulings, where judges “disingenuous[ly] . . . depriv[e] precedents of their force” by...

This Article explores a basic question of precedent formation: When a majority of the Supreme Court cannot agree on a rule of decision, can...

Stare decisis — the idea that courts are bound by precedent — is a bedrock principle of our legal system. But when applying precedent,...

Stare decisis — the idea that courts are bound by precedent — is a bedrock principle of our legal system. But when applying precedent,...

Response to Professor Sohoni's Comment