A group representing the doctors of Canada questions the constitutionality of Alberta legislation limiting access to medical treatment for young transgender people, arguing that it violates their right of freedom of conscience.
The Canadian Medical Association claims that the challenge, filed on Wednesday at the Alberta Court of King’s Banc, is intended to protect the relationship between patients and doctors in terms of decision -making.
“This is an intrusion from the historic and unprecedented government in the doctor-patient relationship and obliges doctors to follow the law rather than clinical directives, patient needs and their own conscience,” the association said in a press release.
The legislation was part of a trio of bills affecting transgender persons that the government of the Prime Minister of Alberta, Danielle Smith, adopted last year.
The association, which represents more than 75,000 doctors, specifically challenges the bill which prevents doctors from prescribing hormone therapy and puberty blockers to children under the age of 16 and prohibits gender reallion surgeries for those under the age of 18.
Other bills prohibit transgender women to participate in amateur female sports and demand that children under the age of 16 have parental consent to change their names or pronouns at school.
Smith said that medical treatment legislation was necessary to protect children and ensure that they do not make major decisions before becoming adults.
Get daily national news
Get the best news of the day, the titles of political, economic and current affairs, delivered in your reception box once a day.
Dr. Jake Donaldson, who is one of the three doctors based in Alberta involved in the challenge of the court, said that the law had placed it as well as other doctors in a “moral crisis”.
“He encroaches on a kind of autonomy from doctors and our ability to provide what we think is the best care based on proofs for patients,” said Calgary’s family doctor in an interview.
“This forces me to be in a way on the sidelines and to refuse to provide care to patients who otherwise, in all likelihood, would benefit considerably.”
Donaldson said it had around 40 young patients who receive the type of treatment that the law prohibits, although a grandfather clause in legislation means that patients are not cut.
“From the point of view of the sexes affirmed by the sexes, what we are able to do in the medical world is to help people,” said Donaldson.
“There are good evidence behind what we do, (and) there are guidelines that we follow. No one makes annoying decisions. “
The president of the association, Dr. Joss Reimer, said that Donaldson was not the only one in a moral crisis following the law.
She said that the association did not want to see the doctors “put in a position where they must choose between following their ethical guidelines … After what their college expects, what the directives say or depending on the law.”
“It is not unprecedented for the CMA to get involved in legal issues, but it was unprecedented for a bill in Canada to restrict the ability to doctors to provide advice to patients,” said Reimer.
The press secretary of Alberta Justice Justice Mickey Amery, Heather Jenkins, said in an email that the government considers that the bill protects children against the making of “irreversible decisions”.
“The Alberta government will vigorously defend our position in court,” said Jenkins.
The association is not the first to challenge the constitutionality of Smith’s legislation.
In December, the Egale Canada advocacy groups and the Stone Foundation skipping, as well as five families from Alberta, launched a charter challenge against the three bills. They also filed an injunction.
The hearings of the injunction request took place in Calgary in March, but a judge has not yet made a decision.
An Egale spokesperson said in a statement that he was hosting the medical group’s challenge.
“No one benefits when governments have inserted themselves into the relationship between doctors and patients,” he said.
Smith previously declared that she thought that the three bills have concluded an equitable balance and that the Charter authorizes the limits of rights.
“We have all kinds of restrictions on the ability of minors to make decisions. And we do it because we want to make sure they are in full ability to be able to make decisions that will be consecutive to them,” said the Prime Minister in December.
Smith said later this month that she would use the notorious clause of the charter “as a last resort” to prevail over possible violations to guarantee the implementation of the legislation.
& Copy 2025 the Canadian press