Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Med Law Rev. 2023 Feb 27;31(1):47-82. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac026.
This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court's reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court's reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.
本文概述了澳大利亚法律中与未成年人和开始接受性别焦虑症（GD）激素治疗相关的内容。它追溯了这一领域的重大澳大利亚法律发展，并将澳大利亚判例法与最近的英国案例法进行了比较。在 Quincy Bell 和 Mrs A 诉 Tavistock 和 Portman NHS 基金会信托和其他人案中，英国高等法院认为，16 岁以下的未成年人不太可能具备合法同意开始使用抑制青春期药物的必要能力。上诉法院随后推翻了这一决定，但高等法院推理中的一些重要方面值得进一步分析，特别是关于 GD 作为一种疾病的性质及其治疗的一些潜在推理。本文在比较 Bell 案高等法院的推理与澳大利亚判例法时，强调了几个常见主题，并强调了自该领域第一批澳大利亚案件做出以来，澳大利亚立场的显著进步。这种比较表明，澳大利亚的观点很重要，它展示了随着对 GD、其治疗以及在这种情况下需要法院介入的更广泛影响的理解加深，司法观点是如何随着时间的推移而发展的。结论是，未来的英国案件应该考虑澳大利亚的观点。
