A British Columbia family doctor has been ordered to pay more than $28,000 after the province’s Human Rights Tribunal found that he discriminated against a transgender teenager when he refused to administer her prescribed puberty blocker.
Dr. Henry Ajaero, who operates a family practice in Delta, B.C., was ordered to pay $28,100 following a Sept. 1 decision by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The case centered on a March 2021 appointment involving a 14-year-old transgender girl identified in the proceedings as Child Q.
Child Q had come out as transgender in 2020 and was experiencing significant distress as she went through puberty. Ajaero referred her to the B.C. Gender Clinic, where an endocrinologist prescribed Lupron, a medication used to temporarily suppress puberty. The teenager later described beginning the medication as one of the best days of her life.
Because Lupron requires regular injections, Child Q and her mother arranged to have one administered at Ajaero’s office.
That is where the problem began.
According to the tribunal decision, Ajaero learned what the medication was being used for after the teenager had already arrived for her appointment. He then told her mother that he would not administer the injection because of his religious beliefs and cultural background.
Ajaero later argued that administering the medication conflicted with his Christian beliefs and that providing the injection was outside the scope of his practice and expertise. The tribunal rejected both defenses. It noted that Ajaero was qualified to administer injections and had not demonstrated that giving Child Q her prescribed medication actually conflicted with his religious beliefs.
Importantly, the tribunal also distinguished puberty suppression from what Ajaero had characterized in his medical notes as “gender reassignment.” Lupron itself does not transition a patient from one gender to another. In this case, it was prescribed to pause puberty while Child Q considered her options.
The tribunal accepted that Ajaero was working under significant pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic and that he felt “uncomfortable and unprepared” dealing with transgender healthcare. It also accepted that he did not deliberately intend to harm the teenager.
But intent was not enough to excuse what happened.
Child Q was entitled to receive medical services without discrimination based on her gender identity, the tribunal found, particularly given her age, mental health, and vulnerability.
The ruling ordered Ajaero to pay $20,000 for injury to the teenager’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with $8,100 in costs. The family had previously complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, which issued Ajaero a formal reprimand.
The decision draws an important line for transgender patients: A healthcare provider does not necessarily need malicious intent for discriminatory treatment to cause harm.
Being uncomfortable with a transgender patient is not the same thing as being medically unqualified to treat one. And in this case, the tribunal found that discomfort did not justify turning a vulnerable teenager away.
