A well-respected medical journal has published an opinion piece arguing that allowing parents to decide on their children’s healthcare could undermine the medical care those children receive.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), considered one of the top medical publications globally, featured this article on October 12. It was authored by two academics specializing in health services, who claim that when parents make healthcare decisions— such as restricting access to sex-change surgeries—it can hinder a child’s necessary medical care and a physician’s ability to deliver it.
In the op-ed, titled “When Parents’ Rights Lead To Policy Wrongs,” the authors expressed concern that a trend in state legislation is expanding parental rights into healthcare, potentially jeopardizing the quality and outcomes of care. They argued that these policies act as obstacles to satisfactory medical treatment, insisting that adolescents need healthcare that is “welcoming, respectful, and nonjudgmental.”
The researchers pointed out several issues related to parents making healthcare choices, which included decisions regarding vaccinations, sexual health treatments, gender and sexuality expression, mental health, and substance abuse challenges.
JAMA stands as the flagship journal of the American Medical Association and holds the fourth spot out of 336 medical journals globally, based on a 2026 impact factor study. Additionally, JAMA is known for its strict acceptance rate—only four percent of submissions get published.
The Cass Review explicitly characterized social gender transition as an active intervention rather than a neutral act. Cass also recommended involving parents in decisions about social transition. This JAMA commentary should be treated as a fringe, radical viewpoint.
— Ian Kingsbury (@PeerReReview) October 12, 2026
“It’s alarming that JAMA permits such a radical and unscientific commentary to be published on their platform,” Ian Kingsbury, a researcher and director at the Center for Accountability In Medicine under the organization Do No Harm—opposing child sex changes—said in a statement. “There is no scientific evidence advocating for transgender interventions on minors, including social transition. The fact that JAMA published this commentary indicates how influenced the medical community has become by transgender activists.”
Both authors of the piece have received substantial grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for their research, according to data on NIH’s project reporter web page.
Dr. Denise Lillvis, the main author of the op-ed, secured over $159,000 in NIH funding for a project she led in 2024. Likewise, her co-author, Dr. Anna Kirkland, has received more than $2 million in grants from the NIH, CDC, and FDA for multiple projects from 2024 to 2026.
In 2021, Kirkland advocated for making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory across the University of Michigan campuses, as shown in a recorded interview.
At the end of the opinion article published by JAMA, Lillvis disclosed her NIH funding as a potential conflict of interest.
Yet, when questioned by the DCNF regarding the grant funding, the NIH categorically denied that it had financed the opinion piece.
“The authors did not receive NIH funding for writing this opinion. They are not NIH employees, and the views shared in the article are their own,” an NIH spokesperson stated. “NIH is dedicated to promoting research that advances public health.”
According to the official Lobbying Guidance for Recipient Activities issued by NIH, non-government entities that receive NIH funding may engage in various policy-related activities; however, they have more restrictions compared to governmental recipients.
When approached for comments, JAMA referred the DCNF to Lillvis, who did not respond, while Kirkland also declined to provide a comment prior to publication.
In their opinion, Lillvis and Kirkland recommended that physicians should oppose laws supporting parental rights in healthcare, arguing that “youth are better off with more avenues to access care and confide in supportive adults.”
The authors particularly criticized Idaho’s House Bill 822, known as the “Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act,” signed into law by Republican Governor Brad Little in July.
The Idaho law asserts that parents have a fundamental right to make medical and educational choices for their children, emphasizing that medical and social transitions can cause significant and irreversible harm to a child’s health.
The legislation also mandates that educators and healthcare providers inform parents if their child chooses a name, pronouns, or appearance that doesn’t align with their sex.
The op-ed stated, “With the implementation of the Idaho law and similar legislative efforts across the country, including recent proposals in Florida, the availability of care and the establishment of caring physician-patient relationships are now at risk for teenagers. If parents control access to physicians, they end up controlling appointments, transportation, timing, payments, and what topics can be discussed. These challenges can be daunting even if a teenager feels comfortable seeking care but become nearly impossible if they want privacy from parental involvement.”
