Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
In Re Devin [2025] the Family Court of Australia considered a case of an 11-year old biologically male child whose mother argued was gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers. Strum J found that despite the child attending for six years, the gender clinic failed to make a diagnosis of gender dysphoria until court proceedings had commenced. He also raised concerns about the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines of the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne which endorsed a gender-affirming model of care. In finding that gender dysphoria could be influenced by external factors, Strum J was critical of the expert witnesses called by the mother whose model of care to gender affirm "unreservedly" was an "oddly binary approach." Strum J held that in exercising its jurisdiction, the Family Court was not concerned with the cause of transgender people, but only with what was in the best interests of the child.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|