As Justice Brennan succinctly explained in Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB (Marion’s Case),2 every person has a unique character and dignity that warrants respect and protection under the law. This extends to every member of society, whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation, sex characteristics or religion. If dignity is to be respected then the affected person should be at the centre of any enquiry, their preferences heard and their interests protected. Sadly however this ideal does not always translate into practice and a recent decision regarding surgical interventions on intersex children is an example of a situation in which the affected person’s rights and future interests were not afforded clear priority. The decision of Re: Carla (Medical Procedure) [2016] FamCA 7 (‘Re: Carla’) saw the Court handing full authority for decision-making to the parents and the medical fraternity. This withdrawal of the need for external scrutiny of an invasive and potentially non-therapeutic medical procedure signalled a retreat by the judiciary from any meaningful engagement with the child’s future preferences. In this article, we argue that this decision, whilst well intentioned is, quite simply, an error in judgment.

中文翻译：

---

Re Carla：判决错误

正如布伦南（Brennan）法官在卫生与社区服务部（Department of Health and Community Services）诉JWB＆SMB（马里恩案）2中简洁地解释的那样，每个人都有其独特的性格和尊严，值得法律的尊重和保护。这适用于社会的每个成员，无论其种族，性别，性取向，性别特征或宗教信仰如何。如果要尊重人格尊严，那么受影响的人应该是任何询问的中心，应听取他们的喜好并保护他们的利益。然而，令人遗憾的是，这种理想并不总是能转化为实践，最近有关对双性恋儿童进行手术干预的决定是这种情况的一个例子，在这种情况下，受影响人的权利和未来利益并未得到明确的重视。关于Re：Carla（医疗程序）[2016] FamCA 7（'Re：卡拉（Carla'）看到法院将决策权完全移交给了父母和医疗兄弟会。不再需要外部检查侵入性和潜在非治疗性医疗程序，这标志着司法机构退出了对儿童未来偏好的任何有意义的参与。在本文中，我们认为，这个决定虽然很明智，但很简单，却是判断上的错误。