On 26 February 2026, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), through the Medical Board of Australia, imposed significant conditions on Dr Andrew Amos, including restrictions on his use of social media and a prohibition on clinical patient consultation. These conditions prevent Dr Amos from engaging in any online discussion relating to gender medicine, gender identity or expression, and transgender persons, and effectively bar him from clinical practice. Women Speak Tasmania has lodged a complaint with AHPRA using its online form, as we believe these measures are disproportionate, unjustified, and represent an inappropriate use of regulatory power that amounts to censorship of lawful medical speech and a serious interference with professional practice.
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/About-Ahpra/Complaints.aspx
Subject: Complaint Regarding Conditions Imposed on Dr Andrew Amos
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding the conditions imposed on Dr Andrew Amos by the Medical Board of Australia on 26 February 2026, as administered by Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.
I am deeply concerned that the conditions placed on Dr Amos — particularly the blanket prohibition on social media engagement relating to gender medicine, gender identity, gender expression, and transgender persons — constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on professional speech, academic debate, and lawful public discourse.
Dr Amos is a fully qualified psychiatrist, a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and has not been found guilty of professional misconduct through any transparent adjudicative process. Yet the conditions imposed effectively silence him from participating in any public discussion on an area of medicine that is both rapidly evolving and subject to legitimate scientific, ethical, and clinical debate.
The prohibition is extraordinarily broad. It applies regardless of whether commentary is clinical, academic, policy-based, or educational in nature, and extends to all forms of online communication, including professional networking platforms and knowledge-sharing forums. This goes far beyond reasonable regulation of professional conduct and amounts to censorship of a registered medical practitioner’s views on a lawful area of medical practice.
I am particularly concerned that these restrictions are content-based rather than conduct-based. Dr Amos is not prohibited from social media use generally, but from discussing a specific medical field. This raises serious questions about viewpoint discrimination and whether regulatory power is being used to suppress dissenting or cautious perspectives on the medicalisation of children and young people.
Equally troubling are the practice restrictions imposed concurrently. The conditions prohibit Dr Amos from engaging in any form of clinical practice and limit him to non-clinical roles only, despite the absence of any published finding that he poses a risk to patient safety. Taken together, these measures effectively remove him from medical practice and public debate simultaneously, without clear justification grounded in patient harm.
AHPRA and the Medical Board have a statutory obligation to protect the public. That obligation does not extend to suppressing lawful, evidence-based discussion of controversial or emerging areas of medicine, particularly where international medical bodies and governments are actively re-evaluating standards of care in this field. Open scientific debate is essential to public safety, not a threat to it.
I respectfully request that AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia:
- Provide a clear public explanation of how a blanket ban on discussion of gender medicine meets the test of necessity and proportionality.
- Clarify whether these conditions would be imposed on practitioners expressing views aligned with prevailing policy, or only on those who question it.
- Review the conditions imposed on Dr Amos with a view to removing content-based speech restrictions that are inconsistent with principles of natural justice, academic freedom, and freedom of expression.
- Confirm what safeguards exist to prevent regulatory action being used to silence lawful medical disagreement.
The chilling effect of this decision extends far beyond one practitioner. It signals to the medical profession that questioning dominant narratives — even respectfully and evidence-based — may result in career-ending sanctions. This is not conducive to safe, ethical, or patient-centred medicine.
I urge AHPRA to reconsider the approach taken in this matter and to ensure that regulatory powers are exercised in a manner that protects the public without undermining open medical inquiry or fundamental freedoms.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Director, Women Speak Tasmania
Dear Dr Caballero,
Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Unfortunately, the confidentiality provisions in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act under which we operate restrict us from commenting on any individual regulatory matter except to the extent that information is available on the online public register of practitioners.
We would like to reassure you that any regulatory decision made is in the interest of protecting the public. Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia work in partnership to implement the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law). The Board is the decision-making body for all concerns made about health practitioners and under the National Law, its primary focus is the protection of public health and safety. Regulatory action is only taken when there is significant evidence of a risk to the public and the Board has determined that the identified risk cannot be managed by any other means.
We understand that this response is disappointing, and are sorry that we have not been able to speak in any substantive way to the concerns that you raised, however we hope that this information has helped to explain how the Medical Board manages concerns about health practitioners. We acknowledge that regulatory decisions have an impact on patients, and we sincerely wish all patients the best in connecting with another health practitioner
If you remain dissatisfied with this response, you can make a complaint to the Office of the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman. You can find out more about the Ombudsman’s service at www.nhpo.gov.au and contact the Ombudsman by email at [email protected] or by phone on 1300 795 265.
Kind regards,
The National Complaints Team
After our complaint to AHPRA did not receive a substantive response, we have decided to escalate the matter to the Office of the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman. Our concern is not with confidential clinical details, but with the proportionality, transparency, and procedural fairness of the regulatory action taken against Dr Andrew Amos. In particular, we are seeking independent oversight of the content-based restrictions imposed on his professional speech and the broad limitations placed on his clinical practice. The following outlines the basis of our complaint.
Email at [email protected]
Subject: Complaint Regarding AHPRA’s Handling of Regulatory Action Against Dr Andrew Amos
To the Office of the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman,
I write to lodge a formal complaint regarding the handling of my concerns by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia in relation to the conditions imposed on Dr Andrew Amos on 26 February 2026.
On 2 March 2026, I submitted a complaint to AHPRA questioning the proportionality and justification of the significant conditions placed on Dr Amos, including a prohibition on social media engagement relating to gender medicine and a restriction preventing him from engaging in any clinical practice. My complaint raised concerns about content-based speech restrictions, the breadth of the imposed conditions, and whether the measures were necessary and proportionate to any demonstrated risk to public safety.
In response, AHPRA advised that confidentiality provisions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law prevented it from commenting substantively on the matter, and that regulatory decisions are made in the interest of protecting the public where there is significant evidence of risk.
While I acknowledge that confidentiality provisions limit disclosure of personal details, my complaint did not seek private clinical information. Rather, it raised broader concerns regarding the exercise of regulatory power, proportionality, transparency, and whether content-specific speech prohibitions are consistent with principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
I am therefore requesting that the Ombudsman examine:
- Whether AHPRA and the Medical Board have appropriately exercised their regulatory powers in imposing a blanket prohibition on discussion of a specific medical field, and whether such a condition is proportionate to the stated objective of public protection.
- Whether the refusal to engage with legitimate public-interest concerns under the broad assertion of confidentiality is consistent with principles of accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making.
- Whether adequate procedural safeguards exist to ensure that regulatory powers are not applied in a manner that creates a chilling effect on lawful professional discourse.
- Whether AHPRA’s response to my complaint met reasonable standards of responsiveness and administrative fairness.
This complaint does not seek access to confidential patient information. It seeks oversight of the manner in which regulatory authority has been exercised and the adequacy of AHPRA’s engagement with legitimate concerns about freedom of professional expression and proportionality.
Given the significant public interest implications of restricting a medical practitioner from participating in lawful public debate and from engaging in clinical practice, I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed to ensure that regulatory processes are fair, transparent, and consistent with the intent of the National Law.
Thank you for your consideration of this complaint. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Director, Women Speak Tasmania
Update: Ombudsman Response to Complaint Regarding AHPRA Action
The Ombudsman has advised that the complaint will not be investigated on the basis that we are not directly involved in the regulatory matter. The NHPO indicated that only the affected practitioner, or a formally nominated representative acting on the practitioner’s behalf, may pursue the complaint further.
The Ombudsman confirmed that while the matter will not proceed to investigation, a record of the concerns raised will be retained to assist in monitoring complaint trends and informing broader regulatory oversight work.
At this stage, the complaint has been closed.