The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.
The revelation came as the state government was charged of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting confidential health records from guardians of trans youth who are considering a additional legal challenge to its disputed prohibition on hormone blockers.
Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order banning the use of puberty blockers for transgender patients, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the initial ban was unlawful.
Media has spoken to four mothers who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a statement of reasons – a detailed account of why the government made a decision to prohibit hormone treatments in the region. Legally, the paper must be provided under the state’s Judicial Review Act.
Each were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their date of birth and any supporting documents which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.
The information were sought before the statement of reasons would be provided.
The message, which has been reviewed by the media, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the data submitted with the health service,” reads the communication, which was dispatched recently.
Each parent described the demand as an invasion of privacy.
A mother said she was reluctant to share the details because the authorities had accidentally forwarded her data to a another individual.
“It feels like having to reveal your child to obtain a response; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.
Louise*, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or expose her child, was among those who asked for a explanation both times.
Earlier, the department emailed a response intended for her to another parent, revealing her name and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a government employee later said sorry over the phone; the media has seen an message from the department confirming the error.
She said she felt “sick and unsafe” as a result of the error.
“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being outed in any public space. She dislikes people to know that she’s transgender,” Louise said.
“I honor that to my very being as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of necessity for gaining access to services and exclusively to individuals I consider trustworthy and I know well.”
Louise was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the hospital.
She said the request was “intimidating” and “feels threatening”.
Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the health background of her young non-binary child.
“It’s not my data, it’s a seven-year-old’s information,” she said.
“To imagine that that information could inadvertently be leaked someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be deeply, deeply distressing to them.”
She wrote back saying the agency had requested an “excessive level of detail”.
“I would not share that information to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the current political climate,” she said.
“It’s such intensely private information. You would not reveal, for instance, your medical condition to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”
The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the parent in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said recently.
Its president, Ren Shike, said the ruling had impacted about hundreds of minors and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of explanations so that minors and their parents can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their access to healthcare”.
The government has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a examination into trans healthcare had been finished.
