Letter to the Health Ombudsman sent on 05.03.26
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express concern about what appears to be an inconsistency in the way the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) is applying its regulatory powers.
In February 2026, Dr Andrew Amos was banned from using social media and had restrictions placed on his ability to practise medicine. According to reporting and public commentary, these actions were taken because Dr Amos expressed the view that the gender-affirming model of care is incompatible with evidence-based medical practice.
However, the gender-affirming model is currently the subject of significant international debate and scrutiny. The Cass Review in the United Kingdom recommended a more holistic approach to treating young people presenting with gender dysphoria, including the careful assessment of comorbid conditions that research shows commonly accompany it.
In Australia, similar concerns have emerged. The Queensland Government recently paused the use of puberty blockers for minors in the public health system due to insufficient evidence regarding their safety and effectiveness. A growing body of commentary suggests that much of the research underpinning the gender-affirming model is methodologically weak, leading some clinicians to argue that the evidence base is not strong enough to support widespread clinical use of this approach.
Against this backdrop, it is difficult to understand how Dr Amos’s advocacy for a more cautious and holistic approach could reasonably be characterised as presenting a “significant risk to the public”.
By contrast, Dr Michelle Telfer, Chief of Medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, has faced criticism in a recent Family Court decision. Justice Strum found that she had provided misleading evidence in support of a mother seeking puberty blockers for her child. He also criticised the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne for treating the child for six years without providing a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
When I wrote to AHPRA seeking clarification, I received the following response:
“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.”
This response raises a fundamental question. How can Dr Amos’s professional opinion—advocating caution and a broader clinical assessment—be considered a significant risk to the public, while a senior clinician criticised by a judge for providing misleading evidence appears to face no comparable regulatory consequences?
From an outside perspective, this creates the impression of a troubling double standard in AHPRA’s approach to regulation. I would appreciate clarification as to how AHPRA ensures that its disciplinary processes are applied consistently and without ideological bias.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
A. Johnsen
Summary of Response sent to A. Johnsen on 06.03.26
The National Health Practitioner Ombudsman advised that they will not investigate the complaint regarding the actions of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia.
The decision was based on two main reasons. First, the complainant is not directly involved in the practitioner’s regulatory matter and does not have authorisation to act on the practitioner’s behalf, which limits the Ombudsman’s ability to access or share relevant information. Second, the Ombudsman noted that the practitioner has the right to challenge the Board’s decision through a tribunal, which is the appropriate avenue for reviewing regulatory actions or seeking the removal of any conditions imposed.
The Ombudsman also clarified that their office cannot overturn or change decisions made by the Medical Board. Concerns about the conduct or performance of individual health practitioners should instead be raised directly with AHPRA.
While no investigation will proceed, the Ombudsman indicated that the complaint will remain on record to help monitor trends and inform broader work on the regulation of health practitioners in Australia.