Treatment for gender dysphoria in children : the new legal, ethical and clinical landscape

- Gender dysphoria is a condition in which a child's subjectively felt identity and gender are not congruent with her or his biological sex. Because of this, the child suffers clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning. - The Family Court of Australia has recently received an increasing number of applications seeking authorisation for the provision of hormones to treat gender dysphoria in children. - Some medical procedures and interventions performed on children are of such a grave nature that court authorisation must be obtained to render them lawful. These procedures are referred to as special medical procedures. - Hormonal therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children is provided in two stages occurring years apart. Until recently, both stages of treatment were regarded by courts as special medical treatments, meaning court authorisation had to be provided for both stages. - In a significant recent development, courts have drawn a distinction between the two stages of treatment, permitting parents to consent to the first stage. In addition, it has been held that a child who is determined by a court to be Gillick competent can consent to stage 2 treatment. - The new legal developments concerning treatment for gender dysphoria are of ethical, clinical and practical importance to children and their families, and to medical practitioners treating children with gender dysphoria. Medical practitioners should benefit from an understanding of the recent developments in legal principles. This will ensure that they have up-to-date information about the circumstances under which treatment may be conducted with parental consent, and those in which they must seek court authorisation.

Reconnecting theory and practice in pluralistic contexts: Issues and Aristotelian considerations

The purpose of this article is to contribute, from a research practitioner perspective, to the theory–practice gap debate in organization studies, focusing on pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. The current debate is introduced; then the features of the two main philosophical traditions (i.e., modernism and postmodernism) are critically summarized. Then, propositions to reconnect theory and practice according to the Aristotelian premodern ethical and practical philosophy are discussed. Some key implications in the following areas are outlined: roles played by practitioners and scholars; emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning; closing the “phronetic gap”; and the development of “good practice,” ethics, and politics.

What is voice? Issues of identity and representation in the framing of reviews

There is a well-founded ethical concern in the present regarding the question Ήow can we include everybody's voice equally in the framing of reviews?' This paper is a response to the complexities that inhere in that question. It is not about Review of Educational Research (RER) as a specific site but about the systems of reasoning that construct the opening question about reviews and that suggest possible answers, including the response: 'What is voice?'

“We don’t tell people what to do”: Ethical practice and Indigenous health promotion

Health promotion aspires to work in empowering, participatory ways, with the goal of supporting people to increase control over their health. However, buried in this goal is an ethical tension: while increasing people’s autonomy, health promotion also imposes a particular, health promotion-sanctioned version of what is good. This tension positions practitioners precariously, where the ethos of empowerment risks increasing health promotion’s paternalistic control over people, rather than people’s control over their own health. Here in we argue that this ethical tension is amplified in Indigenous Australia, where colonial processes of control over Indigenous lands, lives and cultures are indistinguishable from contemporary health promotion ‘interventions’. Moreover, the potential stigmatisation produced in any paternalistic acts ‘done for their own good’ cannot be assumed to have evaporated within the self-proclaimed ‘empowering’ narratives of health promotion. This issue’s guest editor’s call for health promotion to engage ‘with politics and with philosophical ideas about the state and the citizen’ is particularly relevant in an Indigenous Australian context. Indigenous Australians continue to experience health promotion as a moral project of control through intervention, which contradicts health promotion’s central goal of empowerment. Therefore, Indigenous health promotion is an invaluable site for discussion and analysis of health promotion’s broader ethical tensions. Given the persistent and alarming Indigenous health inequalities, this paper calls for systematic ethical reflection in order to redress health promotion’s general failure to reduce health inequalities experienced by Indigenous Australians.

Enhancing ethical data translation in educational qualitative research

Many educational researchers conducting studies in non-English speaking settings attempt to report on their project in English to boost their scholarly impact. It requires preparing and presenting translations of data collected from interviews and observations. This paper discusses the process and ethical considerations involved in this invisible methodological phase. The process includes activities prior to data analysis and to its presentation to be undertaken by the bilingual researcher as translator in order to convey participants’ original meanings as well as to establish and fulfil translation ethics. This paper offers strategies to address such issues; the most appropriate translation method for qualitative study; and approaches to address political issues when presenting such data.