Copyright thepinknews
A ban on puberty blockers for trans people under the age of 18 in the Australian state of Queensland has been reinstated just hours after a Supreme Court judge overturned it. In a ruling on Tuesday (28 October), judge Peter Callaghan said Queensland government officials had failed to properly consult relevant officials about the original directive prior to its announcement in January. But health minister Tim Nicholls quickly issued a new directive to reinstate the restriction. The court heard that health director-general Dr David Rosengren had consulted with executives of the state’s hospitals and health services at 10am on 28 January, the same time that Nicholls held a press conference announcing the ban and a subsequent review. In a statement to parliament on Tuesday, just hours after the verdict, Nicholls issued a “written ministerial direction” to reinstate the ban until the review had been completed, saying the court ruling had focused on the improper process behind the ban’s enactment, not whether it was appropriate. “I am satisfied it is appropriate and in the public interest that I issue a written ministerial direction,” he said, according to The Guardian. The new directive’s provisions are believed to match those announced in January. Queensland government criticised for ‘improper exercise of power’ Queensland government officials originally chose to restrict puberty blocker prescriptions as part of a review into the safety of the hormone suppressants. There is no explicit evidence that the physically reversible medication, which halts unwanted physical changes by suppressing sex hormones, are harmful. Some studies have suggested they are “life-saving” for transgender youngsters. Shortly after Nicholls’ announcement, the mother of a trans teenager sued the state, claiming the decision was an “improper exercise of power”, and asking: “How can [the government] possibly make such a personal decision about the private medical care of a child they have never met and whose experience of growing up is so different to their own?” Ahead of the judgement, the court heard that health executives had not even seen a draft of the directive before being advised about it in a video call, which lasted less than half an hour, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported. LGBTI Legal Service solicitor Matilda Alexander, who represented the mother, said the ministry was undermining the rights of under-18s to access “safe and effective medical care, which is accessible in every other state and territory”. Share your thoughts! Let us know in the comments below, and remember to keep the conversation respectful.
