Referral to AHPRA Concerning Dr Michelle Telfer
Concerning Conduct Revealed in Re Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211 Judgment – Request for Investigation Under the National Law
To:
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
GPO Box 9958
Melbourne VIC 3001
www.ahpra.gov.au
From:
Burchell Wilson
14 June 2025
Subject: Notification of Potential Breaches by Dr Michelle Telfer – Breach of Professional Standards, Professional Misconduct, and Failure to Obtain Informed Consent
Dear AHPRA Complaints and Notifications Team,
I write to formally refer Dr Michelle Telfer, paediatrician and Chief of Medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, for alleged breaches of professional standards, potential professional misconduct, and failure to provide sufficient informed consent to patients, as identified in the publicly released judgment of Re Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211, delivered by Justice Strum in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 3 April 2025.
Practitioner Details
Name: Dr Michelle Telfer
Profession: Medical Practitioner – Paediatrics
Principal Practice: Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne
Notable Position: Lead author of the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines (ASCTG) for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents
Grounds for Notification
1. Breach of Professional Standards (Expert Witness Conduct)
Dr Telfer appeared as an expert witness in the above case and described herself repeatedly as an "advocate for trans people" and "advocate for transgender healthcare." Justice Strum found this amounted to a breach of her duty to provide independent and objective evidence under r 7.18 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
“Advocacy in a court is for lawyers, not witnesses, neither lay nor expert.” (Re Devin, para 11)
Such conduct is inconsistent with the Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia, which requires practitioners to recognise and work within the limits of their expertise and provide objective, evidence-based advice in legal settings.
2. Professional Misconduct – Ideologically Driven Practice and Inflammatory Comparisons
Dr Telfer reportedly compared the increased clinical oversight of gender-affirming care to the persecution of transgender people under Nazism. The presiding judge stated:
“This demonstrates ignorance of the true evils of Nazism, cheapens the sufferings—and mass murder—of the millions of the victims thereof, and has no place whatsoever in the independent evidence that should be expected of such an expert.” (Re Devin, para 382)
This conduct arguably amounts to professional misconduct, as it brings the profession into disrepute and undermines public trust in the neutrality of medical advice in high-stakes contexts involving children.
3. Failure to Ensure Informed Consent
The judgment also revealed that the information provided to the child and family about puberty blockers was described by Dr Telfer as "rose-tinted". This raises a significant question about whether patients (especially minors and their guardians) were given:
A complete and balanced explanation of risks and benefits;
Disclosure of long-term uncertainty, including on bone development, fertility, and cognitive impact.
Justice Strum noted that the child had not been properly assessed for neurodevelopmental or psychological conditions before being treated under the gender-affirming model.
These facts suggest a breach of the duty to obtain genuine informed consent, contrary to AHPRA’s Code of Conduct and the National Law obligations concerning patient autonomy and disclosure.
Supporting Documentation
I refer AHPRA to:
Re Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211, judgment by Strum J
[Available via AustLII or court release]
Request for Investigation
Given the gravity of the Court’s findings, the vulnerability of the children involved, and the implications for clinical governance, I request that AHPRA investigate whether Dr Telfer has:
Breached her obligations as a registered medical practitioner;
Engaged in professional misconduct warranting formal censure or restrictions;
Failed to uphold the principles of informed consent in paediatric gender medicine.
If substantiated, these concerns may warrant disciplinary action under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
Yours sincerely,
Burchell Wilson
14 June 2025