Australian Family Court Allows Cross Sex Hormones for Teen

Is it not?

Is Australian grammar the same as British?

@Harassedevictee

its a quote from the judge because it preceded with “he said”

I don't think that is right. The clause you are referring to is a subordinate clause giving more details about the Cass report not necessarily part of the Judge's comments.

It is somewhat ambiguous but I think the more normal interpretation would be that the subordinate clause is an explanatory detail from the author not part of the Judge's reported speech.

“He said the Cass Review was undertaken “in a vexed environment". The Cass Review is a landmark probe that recommended “extreme caution” be taken when prescribing hormones to children.

Not

“He said the Cass Review was a landmark probe that recommended “extreme caution” be taken when prescribing hormones to children and that it was undertaken “in a vexed environment”.”

The first reading is that the Judge had a view on environment in which the Cass Review was done but made no comment on its contents.

My view is the judge acted professionally and considered all the evidence submitted and reached a conclusion.

Its fine to agree or disagree with his decision but unless you read all the evidence, heard from the witnesses and read the full judgement it isn’t right to question his professionalism or as one early poster did call him a moron.

Extract from Cass review - regarding cross sex hormones.
“Although young people often express a sense of urgency in their wish to access medical
treatments, based on personal experience some young adults have suggested that taking time
to explore options is preferable. Although young people often express a sense of urgency in their wish to access medical
treatments, based on personal experience some young adults have suggested that taking time
to explore options is preferable. The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones
from the age of 16 is available, but the Review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18.
This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time
for management of any co-occurring conditions,
building of resilience, and fertility preservation This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any co-occurring conditions,building of resilience, and fertility preservation if required.

@OldCrone its a quote from the judge because it preceded with “he said”.

The judge agreed to hear arguments for including Cass as evidence

Does anyone have a link to the full judgement?

The only direct quote about whether or not the judge had read the Cass review is in the article I posted, where he said, part way through the case, that he hadn't. There also seemed to be some reluctance on his part to allow it as evidence.

Which paragraph from the Cass review that was previously posted?

It's not clear whether the bit about "extreme caution" is a quote from the judge or an explanation by the journalist writing the article.

According to the original article

“He said the Cass Review, a landmark probe that recommended “extreme caution” be taken when prescribing hormones to children, was undertaken “in a vexed environment”.”

The article is not the full judgement but the quote is probably taken from the paragraph from Cass review that previously posted.

What did he quote?

Forgot to quote

They base their judgements on actual medical evidence and precedent, not made-up nonsense from bodies that lack any credibility.

Essentially in June 2024 the judge said it hadn’t been submitted it in evidence YET.

There were legal arguments about whether or not it should be included.

6 months later the judge quotes it in his decision

Where does it say he didn’t.

Where does it say that he'd read the whole Cass review?

Can you provide a link that substantiates this.

The judge quoted Cass so must have accepted it in to evidence.

But presumably, they don't rule to exclude vital evidence, then say that they haven't seen the evidence, but agree to the alternative evidence?

Judges in the UK have been asked on many occasions to decide whether or not to withdraw life support to children and adults. Their parents/families object but the clinical view is it is the right thing.

If judges are trusted to decide to end a child or an adults life by with drawing life support they should be able to make a decision in this case.

The judge was considering whether or not to uphold the clinical decision based on all the evidence. I consider that to be extreme caution. It also had the benefit of delaying the prescription by 6+ months.

I can see where you're coming from on a balancing of rights perspective. Through that lens, this is a cautious approach. However, the judge doesn't have an understanding of the medical evidence to know how much weight to give each piece. He's not the right person to decide what is cautious as far as the medical perspective goes.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay The Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines, just like pre Cass Review the NHS, followed WPATH guidance!

Court is the last resort not the first. By the time you get to court you should have boxes and boxes of evidence. This includes details of the whole clinical process the person has gone through, a clinical recommendation, psychological report and recommendation, guidance (in this case the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines), parents views, the persons views and expert evidence e.g. Cass review,

I would much rather there were evidence based legislation that meant it was clear cut what the right clinical decision was and there was no debate.

The reality is the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines apparently permit the prescribing of cross sex hormones.
So clinically it was approved.
It is only because one parent has objected that this has even gone to court.

The judge was considering whether or not to uphold the clinical decision based on all the evidence. I consider that to be extreme caution. It also had the benefit of delaying the prescription by 6+ months.

@BonfireLady thank you,

(I have no idea how that ended up duplicating?!)

“extreme caution” is not never. Please define what steps in your view would meet “extreme caution” but not never.

1. if at least one parent has objections on the grounds of medical risk, no cross-sex hormones should be prescribed

Or

2. if at least one doctor has objections on the grounds of medical risk, no cross-sex hormones should be prescribed

Edited to add that this is an "or" situation. Extreme caution means that there should be no doubt from a medical risk perspective.

“extreme caution” is not never. Please define what steps in your view would meet “extreme caution” but not never.

1. if at least one parent has objections on the grounds of medical risk, no cross-sex hormones should be prescribed
2. if at least one doctor has objections on the grounds of medical risk, no cross-sex hormones should be prescribed

My view is a judicial decision based on all the evidence is “extreme caution” and far more consideration that the Australian Guidelines the clinicians would have followed.

Context is everything, and the Australian context must be quite something! So in your personal view even going to court at all counts as "extreme caution"; and yes the judge's decision might be based on "more consideration that the Australian Guidelines the clinicians would have followed"; but in my view the judge's decision is still "extreme recklessness".

When the alternative was to tell Ash to wait, what, 2 years to legal adulthood and the ability to make their own decisions about cross-sex hormones. Less by the time the case got to court. What was the urgency?

@BonfireLady ialso seems to have prevented the barrister from presenting the Cass review as evidence.

If at least parts of the Cass Review were not admitted into evidence how did the judge quote from it in his judgement?

“extreme caution” is not never. Please define what steps in your view would meet “extreme caution” but not never.

My view is a judicial decision based on all the evidence is “extreme caution” and far more consideration that the Australian Guidelines the clinicians would have followed.