The circumstances which unfortunately affect the applicant herself are, to say the least, very unusual. The details of the claim involve very personal details concerning the impact of her disability upon her sexual life, such that I have decided that those details ought not, out of respect for her, to be disclosed in the public section of these reasons for decision. I apprehend that she would be embarrassed and disconcerted by their disclosure publicly, and that no public interest requires that such details be exposed to the world at large, or to media discussion.
So wrote the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in WRMF and National Disability Insurance Agency  AATA 1771. The decision itself is not complex, but the context of it is extremely sad.
‘WRMF’ is a woman with severe multiple sclerosis and other related conditions. She has had a physical disability since age 17, and apparently also suffers some psychiatric conditions. Her MS is to such a degree that she is unable to masturbate. She sought funding for a sex therapist to manage aspects of her condition and not — it is important to stress this point — because she couldn’t find a partner. The fact that she couldn’t masturbate is, apparently, causing her enormous stress:
Her response to her achievement of sexual release (to the extent to which she is able to obtain such release) as a result of the services of a specialised sex therapist were described by the applicant in evidence which I accept as good for her mental wellbeing, her emotional wellbeing and her physical wellbeing at Transcript page 18, where she also said that her mood is less dull, it releases tension and anxiety, and improves her outlook on life. […] The applicant chooses to have the services of a sexual therapist. Most people do not need such services to achieve sexual release, so in a sense she is put on a par with others as far as she can be. As I have found, the support will help her realise her potential for social and emotional development and to participate in social life.
This should be the entirity of the debate. It’s an extreme situation with a lot of specific facts. It’s not really appropriate for widespread media attention.