Re: Matthew

In the matter of *Re: Matthew*, Rees J of the Supreme Court of [State of Australia] was required to determine the capacity of a child, referred to as Matthew, to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria. The proceedings involved Matthew, his parents, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, with the central dispute concerning whether Matthew possessed the maturity and understanding to make informed decisions about his medical care, specifically the administration of testosterone.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Matthew, a minor, was a "mature minor" with the capacity to consent to the proposed medical treatment. This required an assessment of his ability to understand the nature, purpose, and consequences of the treatment for gender dysphoria, as defined by the DSM-5, and to make a voluntary and informed decision without undue influence. The Court had to consider the principles of medical treatment for minors in Australian law, particularly where a minor demonstrates sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable them to understand fully what is proposed.

Rees J applied the established legal principles governing the consent of mature minors to medical treatment. The Court considered evidence regarding Matthew's age, intellectual capacity, emotional maturity, and his comprehension of the proposed treatment, including its benefits and risks. The reasoning focused on Matthew's demonstrated ability to understand the complex information relevant to his treatment and to make a reasoned choice. The Court concluded that Matthew possessed the requisite capacity to consent to the administration of testosterone for the treatment of his gender dysphoria.

Consequently, the Court declared that Matthew was competent to consent to the administration of testosterone for the treatment of gender dysphoria. In addition, the Court made extensive orders for the anonymisation of the proceedings and restricted access to the court file to protect Matthew's privacy and identity.