An Investigation of Parental Consent Principles and Their Effects on TGDNB Minors Access to Hormone Therapy in Australia

In Australia, the legal and ethical discourse regarding parental consent for gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has significant complexity and represents an evolving dynamic of discourse. The role of parental consent in minors access to GAHT has become increasingly complicated with laws and policies changing in response to societal perspectives on gender identity, the involvement and role of the courts is a determining factor in minors' access to GAHT. Simultaneously it is intensely associated with the minors individual consent and the scope of medical practitioners' responsibilities. As established by Gillick V. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Healthy Authority, the Gillick competency principle recognises that minors are allowed to make decisions independently if they have sufficient maturity and capacity to understand the implications and consequences of such decisions. The Australian jurisprudence, at present, was initially considered to recognise the Gillick competency principle. However, as the jurisprudence continues to evolve, the legal attitude regarding minors' access to GAHT treatment in Australia has deviated from the Gillick competency principle due to the tendency of parental protectionism in Australia. This thesis starts with the content and the reasoning of the Gillick Competency Principle, to discuss its practice and applications in Australia, as well as its implications regarding the Parental Consent Principle and the accessibility of GAHT to minors. Meanwhile, providing suggestions regarding the improvement of the present situation.