The regulator says it will continue to combat racism and discrimination directed at practitioners.
A string of recent articles published by The Australian have questioned AHPRA’s independence when it comes to transgender issues, but the regulator’s CEO is standing firm and says it has zero tolerance for discrimination in any form.
One article in particular, published on April 22, suggested that AHPRA was “hopelessly compromised … because it is a signed-up member of Australia’s most powerful trans lobby group, ACON”.
The piece went on to detail multiple AHPRA decisions.
These included the decisions to investigate various healthcare professionals who had voiced opposition to gender-affirming medicine, the decision not to investigate a doctor who worked in gender-affirming medicine and the decision to allow a transgender physician to register as female, rather than as her sex assigned at birth.
In a joint statement released on Wednesday, AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner and medical board chair Dr Susan O’Dwyer said the articles published by The Australian “have the potential to undermine trust in the role … regulators play”.
“Our expectations of medical practitioners – expressed via the standards and our Code – are clear and underpinned by evidence,” Mr Untersteiner and Dr O’Dwyer wrote.
“And doctors know that when they register to work in Australia, they must comply with them.
“People working in other sectors and industries – such as the media – might regard the expectations we set for the medical profession as onerously high.
“We regard them as integral to maintaining public trust in the profession and providing safe care.”
Related
The statement, which said it sought to “correct the record”, acknowledged that people from marginalised and minority communities had “all too often been the recipients of prejudice”.
“This is why we have zero tolerance for expressions of racism and discrimination by medical practitioners,” the statement read.
“Equally, we expect doctors, and all other health practitioners, are protected from experiencing racism and discrimination.
“And, when it is in our power to do so, we act to combat racism and discrimination directed at our registered health practitioners.”
While all registered health practitioners had the right to free speech, Mr Untersteiner and Dr O’Dwyer wrote, that right was constrained if a practitioner commented or supported comments that caused harm to an individual or a group.
The harm, they said, was that the health practitioner eroded trust in the profession as a whole and may result in some community members avoiding healthcare.
Although the joint statement did not refer specifically to the transgender doctor who was registered as female, it did point out that AHPRA worked within Australia’s legal framework and government guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender.
“Ahpra registers nearly one million health practitioners, recording identifying information including their sex, languages they speak, qualifications and their principal place of practice,” the statement read.
“In registering with us, practitioners verify their identification using a system that is aligned to the 100-point process most Australians are familiar with, together with proof of their qualification.
“This is not arbitrary, it is grounded in law.”
It concluded by reiterating that AHPRA’s decisions were independent and not influenced by any third parties, including those it partnered with in creating guidelines.
“We make our own decisions, but we are not so arrogant to think that we will not do better if we take the time to listen and learn from the life experiences of others,” Mr Untersteiner and Dr O’Dwyer wrote.
“Just like medical science, the society we live and work within does not stand still. It is incumbent upon us in the work we do to remain open and reflective. To do all we can to reduce harm. And we are committed to doing so.”
This article discusses topics of a sensitive nature. The Medical Republic has chosen to limit comments at this time.
