Children’s hospital backs Michelle Telfer after judge’s criticism

The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne has championed its chief of medicine Michelle Telfer after a judge found she gave misleading evidence in support of a mother who wanted her child to be prescribed puberty blockers.

Professor Michelle Telfer, chief of medicine at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne. Picture: Simon Schluter

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne has championed its chief of medicine Michelle Telfer as a highly respected pediatrician who saves lives – despite a judge finding she gave misleading evidence in support of a mother who wanted her child to be prescribed puberty blockers.

The hospital declined to confirm whether it would instigate a formal investigation into the findings of Family Court judge Andrew Strum, who rejected the hospital’s diagnosis of the child with gender dysphoria, after finding there were “significant issues” with how this conclusion was reached.

Chief executive Peter Steer this week refused to answer questions put to him directly by The Australian as to whether the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne would take any action in light of Justice Strum’s findings, instead referring back to the hospital’s corporate communications team.

“Associate Professor Michelle Telfer is a highly respected pediatrician, expert in adolescent medicine, and fierce advocate for the health and wellbeing of all children and young people,” a statement from the hospital reads.

“Throughout her career, Associate Professor Telfer’s leadership has been instrumental in improving the research and clinical care of all children, in par­ticular trans or gender diverse children and adolescents and those experiencing gender dysphoria.”

Justice Strum’s landmark judgment, published in April, anonymised Professor Telfer as Associate Professor L and did not name the Royal Children’s Hospital due to statutory prohibitions preventing the identification of witnesses in Family Court proceedings.

However, The Australian was earlier this month successful in petitioning the court to name ­Professor Telfer and her place of work, arguing it was in the public interest for the practices of an ­expert healthcare professional and a pre-eminent medical service to be transparent.

Justice Strum, who stripped the mother of custody and effectively blocked the 12-year-old from accessing treatment, was highly critical of the RCH and another practitioner, Dr N, finding her evidence “revealed significant issues with the diagnostic process undertaken by her and the conclusions reached by her”.

He said Dr N’s diagnosis of the child as gender-dysphoric was made only “as the pending trial dates approached” and found the timing of the diagnosis was “more than merely coincidental”.

Justice Strum said Professor Telfer cheapened the suffering of victims of Nazism when she suggested the UK Cass review – that recommended limitations on medication for gender-dysphoric ­children – formed part of a wave of trans­gender oppression commencing with the Nazis.

He said Professor Telfer “disagrees with much” of the Cass review, which “manifestly runs contrary to her life’s work as an ‘advocate’ for the cause in relation to which the Cass Report urges, at least, greater caution”.

“It is submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer … and I agree, that Associate Professor L’s responses were ‘misleading or omitted findings/material that ­detracted from (their) opinion’ contrary to the obligations as an expert witness,” Justice Strum wrote. “Some of the many examples proffered are concerning.”

He also questioned the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents – authored by Professor Telfer and adopted by the hospital – for not recognising children may not be capable of making life-altering medical decisions about their gender identity.

“It is concerning that an oddly binary approach is adopted in relation to children, especially of the age of the child the subject of these proceedings; that is, to affirm unreservedly those who present with concerns regarding their gender, brooking no questioning thereof,” he wrote in the judgment.

The Australian this week put a series of questions to the RCH in light of the findings, asking what action would be taken in regards to the treatment of the child and Professor Telfer’s conduct.

The Australian also requested to speak directly with Mr Steer about the issue, but he directed inquiries to the corporate communications team.

“Our world-leading RCH Gender Service offers some of the most vulnerable Victorians the lifesaving care they need, and we are proud to support the work they do,” a statement from the hospital reads.

“With the utmost consideration, empathy and care for her patients, Associate Professor Telfer believes children and families are best placed to make informed decisions about their own healthcare.

A Victorian government spokesperson stood by an earlier statement it gave to The Australian, describing the hospital as a “world-class health service whose clinical decisions – backed by a comprehensive multidisciplinary model of care – are rightfully made by doctors, not politicians”.