Australian Gynecologist Sparks Outrage for Refusing to Treat Trans kids
Dr. Victor Acharian, an Australian gynecologist, has become the center of a national controversy after refusing to provide medical care to a 9-year-old transgender child, a decision that ultimately led to disciplinary action by Australia’s medical authorities and reignited debate about discrimination, ethics, and access to healthcare.
The case began when the child’s family sought gynecological advice related to a medical concern. According to complaints later reviewed by regulators, Dr. Acharian declined to treat the patient and allegedly stated that he “only treats real women.” The situation escalated further after a Google review attributed to the doctor contained language that LGBTQ+ advocates described as dismissive and derogatory toward transgender people.
The incident quickly drew attention from advocacy groups, medical professionals, and the wider public. LGBTQ+ organizations condemned the refusal, arguing that denying care based on gender identity violates fundamental medical ethics and places already vulnerable patients at risk. They emphasized that transgender children often face significant barriers when seeking healthcare, including stigma, lack of provider knowledge, and outright rejection.
In early 2025, Australia’s medical disciplinary board concluded its investigation into the matter. The board found that Dr. Acharian’s conduct breached professional standards expected of registered medical practitioners. As a result, he was handed a one-month suspension and placed on probation for five months, during which his conduct will be monitored. The ruling made clear that personal beliefs cannot override a doctor’s duty to provide respectful, non-discriminatory care or appropriate referrals.
In its findings, the board stressed that medical professionals have an obligation to treat patients with dignity and respect, regardless of personal views. Regulators noted that while doctors may decline to provide certain treatments within legal and ethical boundaries, refusal must never be accompanied by demeaning language or discriminatory reasoning. Importantly, practitioners are expected to ensure continuity of care by directing patients to alternative providers when necessary.
The case has sparked intense discussion across Australia about the intersection of personal beliefs, professional responsibility, and patient rights. Supporters of the disciplinary action argue that the ruling sends a strong message that discrimination has no place in healthcare. They say it reinforces the principle that all patients, including transgender and gender-diverse children, deserve safe and respectful access to medical services.
“This isn’t about forcing doctors to abandon personal beliefs,” one advocacy group said in a statement. “It’s about ensuring that no child is turned away or humiliated when seeking medical help.”
Others, however, have raised concerns about freedom of conscience in medicine, arguing that healthcare providers should not be punished for holding traditional views about sex and gender. Some commentators warned that cases like this could discourage doctors from practicing in sensitive areas or speaking openly about their beliefs. Medical ethicists, however, counter that professional responsibility must always come first, especially when dealing with children.
Experts also point out that the case highlights broader systemic issues within healthcare systems. Transgender patients, particularly minors, often struggle to find providers who are both knowledgeable and willing to offer care. Studies have shown that fear of discrimination leads many transgender individuals to delay or avoid medical treatment altogether, which can result in worse health outcomes.
For the child and family involved, the experience was reportedly distressing. Advocates say incidents like this can have lasting emotional impacts, reinforcing feelings of exclusion and shame at a formative age. They argue that medical settings should be places of safety and trust, not conflict or rejection.
The controversy surrounding Dr. Acharian has prompted renewed calls for improved training on gender diversity and inclusive care within Australia’s medical education system. Many healthcare organizations are now urging clinics and hospitals to review their policies, ensuring clear guidelines are in place to prevent similar incidents in the future.
As Australia continues to grapple with questions of inclusion, ethics, and medical professionalism, the case stands as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of discrimination in healthcare. For many, it underscores a simple but powerful principle: access to medical care should never depend on who a patient is, but on what they need.