The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) has imposed conditions on Queensland psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos, restricting him from publicly discussing gender medicine and limiting his ability to practise with patients.
The action followed complaints about Dr Amos’s public commentary questioning the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors.
Dr Amos’s case has raised concerns about whether doctors can openly participate in scientific debate about gender treatments for children without facing professional consequences.
Other clinicians who have raised concerns about aspects of gender medicine, including psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer, have also spoken publicly about professional pressures surrounding this issue.
Read More
Dr Andrew Amos, a psychiatrist and academic at James Cook University, has been subjected to immediate action by AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia after raising concerns about the scientific foundations of medical gender interventions for minors.
Under the conditions imposed by the regulator, Dr Amos must stop making online statements about gender medicine and is prohibited from direct or indirect contact with patients unless practising at an approved location.
These restrictions were triggered by complaints about his public commentary. AHPRA used its immediate action powers, which allow the regulator to impose conditions where it believes there may be a serious risk to public health or safety, even before a full investigation is completed.
Dr Amos’s comments formed part of a broader professional debate about treatments for gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. Internationally, this issue is receiving increasing scrutiny. In 2024, the United Kingdom’s independent Cass Review identified significant weaknesses in the evidence base supporting puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, prompting major changes to youth gender services in the UK.
Some clinicians argue that the ability of doctors to question evidence and discuss risks openly is an essential part of responsible medical practice, particularly in areas involving complex and evolving treatments.
Families, patients and medical professionals benefit when difficult questions can be examined transparently and evidence can be debated openly. Ensuring that such discussion can occur within the medical profession remains an important part of maintaining trust in healthcare.
