🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government released private information about the mother of a trans teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure emerged as the government was accused of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after demanding confidential medical information from guardians of transgender children who are considering a additional court case to its controversial ban on puberty blockers.

Recent Official Order on Puberty Blockers

Recently, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has interviewed several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the authorities made a decision to ban hormone treatments in the state. Legally, the document must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Health Information

Each were asked by the Queensland health department for details of their teen’s health background, including “your child’s name, their birthdate and any other evidence which confirms your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The information were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.

The message, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with the health service,” states the communication, which was dispatched recently.

Mothers Describe Request as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers characterized the request as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the information because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her data to a another individual.

“It feels like having to ‘out’ your teen to actually get a response; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.

Situation of Louise*

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her teen, was one of several who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a reply intended for her to someone else, disclosing her name and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the Guardian has obtained an message from the department admitting the error.

She said she felt “sick and unsafe” as a result of the blunder.

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any social setting. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever, ever disclose is out of need for gaining access to supports and exclusively to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”

Louise was especially worried about the implication it would be “verified” by the hospital.

She said the demand was “intimidating” and “seems coercive”.

Other Parent Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was not comfortable disclosing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

“It’s not my data, it’s a child’s information,” she said.

“To think that that information could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She responded saying the department had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to any other organisation that asked for it, particularly in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You wouldn’t disclose, for instance, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to provide any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which represented the mother in her case, was considering a new legal action, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about hundreds of minors and their families and it was “important to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the logic behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.

Authorities Position on Prohibition

The authorities has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.