Pressure is growing on Australia now that New Zealand has banned new prescriptions for puberty blockers.
NZ Health Minister Simeon Brown explained that there is a lack of high-quality evidence for the benefits or risks of puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria. In the light of this uncertainty, his government is taking a “precautionary approach”.
“We are putting in place stronger safeguards so families can have confidence that any treatment is clinically sound and in the best interests of the young person or child,” said the NZ minister.
“Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (puberty blockers) play an important role in treating a range of medical conditions.
“We are ensuring they remain available for patients who need them for conditions such as early-onset puberty, endometriosis, or prostate cancer, where there is strong clinical evidence of benefit.”
NZ’s new approach will not impact patients currently receiving puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence. The changes will affect only children who apply after December 19.
Here in Australia an interim report on the highly controversial treatments involved in “gender-affirming” medicine, commissioned by federal health minister Mark Butler in January, is expected in the middle of next year.
Court approval used to be required, even if parents agreed, for a gender dysphoric child to be prescribed puberty blockers.
But in a 2013 case called re Jamie, the Family Court ruled that this was unnecessary because the medications were safe and reversible.
In recent years, however, there has been a cascade of countries questioning this. New Zealand’s health minister is confident that he is following a well-trodden path.
“This (move) mirrors steps taken in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, where additional safeguards have recently been implemented to ensure decisions are made in line with the best available evidence,” Mr Brown says.
Most influential of all has been the landmark review of “gender-affirming” medicine in the UK, the Cass Report, which was published in April 2024.
“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint,” wrote the chair, Dr Hilary Cass, a distinguished British paediatrician.
“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”
The conventional wisdom on puberty blockers is already shifting in Australia.
In the wake of numerous studies which have undermined the accepted model for treating gender dysphoric children, the judges involved in re Jamie have had second thoughts.
“Things have absolutely moved on since 2013,” former Family Court chief justice Diana Bryant told journalist Bernard Lane recently in The Australian.
“So, if I were deciding the case now and had the evidence that’s now becoming available, I certainly doubt that I would have come to the conclusion that we should move to the general view that (court) approval wasn’t needed for puberty blockers.”
Lane, who also edits the newsletter Gender Clinic News, told The Catholic Weekly that the NZ decision is bound to affect the debate in Australia.
“This decision is yet another nudge internationally in the direction of more caution, less medicalisation,” he said.
“Our federal health minister Mark Butler assumes it’s just puberty blockers as usual while new national guidelines are drawn up under the aegis of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
“A lot can happen before the 2028 deadline for the completed guidelines. We’re told there will be interim advice on puberty blockers by mid-2026. The rigour and independence of the NHMRC process is yet to be proven.
“The question for Mr Butler is why he sees no role for the Australian health minister to work with his state and territory counterparts to impose a precautionary pause in new puberty blocker treatment, at least until interim advice on their safety is available.”