BC Tribunal Orders Doctor to Pay $28,100 for Refusing to Inject Transgender Teen With Puberty Blocker

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a B.C. family doctor to pay $28,100 for declining to administer a puberty blocking drug to a transgender teenager in 2021.

Dr. Henry Ajaero said his refusal to inject the biologically male teen with a puberty blocker was motivated by clinical concerns with his lack of experience in past treatment for gender transition and his Christian religious beliefs, which do not recognize gender ideology.

“The Code is concerned with impacts and not intent,” tribunal member Devyn Cousineau wrote in her Sept. 1 decision, adding that “Child Q was denied access to medical services because of her gender identity.”

If a complaint is found to have merit by the tribunal, it can order compensation and require an end to discriminatory actions.

If a respondent does not comply with a tribunal order, a successful complainant is able to file a certified copy of the order with the B.C. Supreme Court, after which it can be enforced in the same manner as a court judgment.

The case alleging that Ajaero had engaged in discrimination against Child Q on the basis of gender identity was filed Sept. 23, 2021, by the mother of Child Q on Child Q’s behalf.

In her decision on Child Q, Cousineau concluded that Ajaero had breached Section 8 of B.C.’s Human Rights Code by refusing to give Child Q the injection in March 2021.

Section 8 of the Code bars any discrimination in providing services to the public on protected grounds including race, religion, place of origin, “gender identity or expression,” and a number of other protected categories.

After Ajaero refused to inject Child Q with Lupron, the patient was still able to receive the shot later the same day at a walk-in clinic and continued to receive injections at walk-in clinics until acquiring a new family doctor.

However, Cousineau denied Ajaero’s statement that he had not caused any denial of service to Child Q, stating that “it is not relevant to liability” that Child Q was able to obtain the injection elsewhere and that Ajaero had not assisted Child Q in finding another location to receive the injection.

“[Ajaero] did not offer Mother Q or Child Q any assistance or options to ensure that Child Q could receive her injection that day,” Cousineau wrote in criticism of Ajaero’s actions.

Upon refusal to administer the dose on March 5, 2021, Ajaero said he spoke to Child Q’s mother and told Child Q’s mother about his objection to administering the drug, also stating there was nobody else at his clinic who would do it.

In testimony before the tribunal, Ajaero said gender transition was against his Christian faith, including the belief that “God created man and woman.”

Ajaero also said that giving Lupron was outside the scope of his past medical experience and professional expertise and that he felt “uncomfortable and unprepared” to engage in “gender therapy,” which he had no experience in.

Although she accepted the sincerity of Ajaero’s beliefs and said he had acted in good faith, Cousineau said the “impacts” of his decision were discriminatory whether or not he intended them to be.

Cousineau said that despite religious belief being a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Ajaero’s rights of belief had only suffered in a “trivial” manner.

“Any interference would, in my view, be trivial or insubstantial because it would ‘not threaten actual religious beliefs or conduct,’” Cousineau wrote, adding that Ajaero’s “religion does not exempt him” from the B.C. Human Rights Code.

Cousineau also disputed Ajaero’s claim that giving a Lupron injection was outside the scope of his expertise, noting that he would not be overseeing Child Q’s gender transition and was only being asked to give a basic intramuscular injection.

As well, the tribunal found that Ajaero didn’t take adequate steps to assist the patient and mother of the patient to find an alternate location to receive the injection.

Commenting in general on standards, the College said that licensees who conscientiously object to a procedure or treatment must provide the patient with help to access to it elsewhere.

“While licensees may make a personal choice not to provide a treatment or procedure based on their values and beliefs, they must provide patients with enough information and assistance to allow the patient to make an informed choice for themselves,” the College stated.

“This includes advising the patient that other health-care providers may be available to see them. Where needed, licensees must offer assistance and must not abandon the patient.”

Doctors of BC, the professional association representing more than 18,000 medical professionals in B.C., declined to comment on the case.

The Epoch Times reached out to Ajaero’s lawyer Scott Marcinkow and Child Q lawyer Adrienne Smith but did not hear back by time of publication.