How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
This is in Australian case, about to start.
What are your thoughts?
:
Anti-vaccination mother tells Family Court immunisation akin to sterilising, changing gender of children
By Sean Fewster
A MUM who has gone to court to fight her ex-husband's bid to have their children vaccinated says the procedure is akin to sterilisation or gender reassignment.
The mother, who cannot be identified, is fighting her former husband in the Family Court because she "vehemently opposes" his desire to vaccinate their two children.
She wants the court to declare immunisation a "special medical procedure", giving it the same legal status as sexual sterilisation and gender reassignment surgery.
To support her claims, the mother will call expert evidence from US doctors - and have her children undergo a battery of medical tests.
Since 2011, the Family Court has become increasingly involved in the vaccination debate.
In January of that year, it ordered a mother have her daughter, 5, immunised in line with the wishes of her former husband.
The girl's father, who has remarried and has another child, wanted the girl vaccinated against preventable diseases for her own wellbeing, and for the health of his other children.
In November last year, an eight-year-old Victorian girl continued to receive vaccinations against the objections of her mother.
The court heard the girl's father had been "secretly vaccinating" her during custody visits because he did not want to play "Russian roulette with her health".
The latest battle, between the parents of children dubbed "J" and "P" in court documents, is scheduled to commence on January 29 and last seven days.
Court documents do not give the ages, nor the genders, of J and P.
In a pre-trial application in April, the children's mother asked the court treat the father's proposal they be vaccinated as a "special medical procedure".
Under the Family Court Act, special medical procedures include sterilising intellectually-disabled girls, gender reassignment surgery, and lifesaving techniques opposed on religious grounds.
The mother also asked to call US-based doctors to support her claims, saying one specialist had quoted an appearance fee of $5000.
She said those overseas witnesses should be permitted to give evidence by telephone - the father objected, saying all testimony should be made in person.
In July the court ruled against the mother, saying she would have to call witnesses at her own expense and have the children undergo medical testing during her custody periods.
It permitted her doctors to test the children's blood, faecal and urine on the children, but not their food.
The mother subsequently lodged an appeal, saying the court lacked sufficient evidence to decide whether immunisation was a special medical procedure.
She claimed the decision demonstrated "bias and error", and showed the court had "failed in its duty of care".
The mother asked the trial be adjourned to provide her "sufficient time" to "research the relevant law" and further challenge the ruling.
In a judgment published on the court's website, Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace dismissed the appeal and ordered the trial go ahead as scheduled.
"Whether or not (immunisation) is found to be a special medical procedure is a matter to be determined and argued before the trial judge," she says.
Source: The Advertiser
taken from Family Law Network Australia website
accessed 15 January 2014
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
I don't believe it should be classified as a special medical procedure along side sterilization and gender reassignment.
I am happy to change my mind if the evidence resoundingly supports this mother.
I sometimes wonder if the parents can't just put all their energy that they use for fighting each other into just loving the kids. Perhaps the outcome would be different.
No winners. Just all losers. ( ETA I don't mean they are losers in a mocking sense, just that they cannot consider a ruling in their favour much of a victory)
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
My children aren't vaccinated at this point in time, and I find the comparison a ridiculous stretch. I do however think this case is really sad.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
I don't think it should have the classification changed either.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
:
I sometimes wonder if the parents can't just put all their energy that they use for fighting each other into just loving the kids.
Loving your child doesn't stop the other parent abusing your child. It seems this mother loves her children very much to keep trying to fight to protect them against what she perceives to be a very serious threat to their health and wellbeing.
Given the potentially serious ramifications/known side effects of immunisation I think she has a some what valid case that this should be perceived as a serious medical procedure that can't just be decided upon by one parent.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
You assumed I meant that the mother was the one focusing her energy in the wrong direction.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
Haha! Nah- I just get her point of view more personally. By the same token you could flip my words and say that the father loves his children and doesn't want to see them suffer the abuse of medical neglect.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
Immunisation is not, and will not be, determined as a "special medical procedure".
There is significant case law in the opposite direction.
The Courts regularly overrule anti-vaccination parents - although often a delayed vaccination schedule is adopted on the basis of expert reports.
The only time I have seen it (non-vaccing) supported is where one parent has been given sole parental responsibility - that is, the sole decision-making person is one parent, and the other parent has been excluded (for very good reason).
It is highly unlikely that she will be successful. ALthough it is not a Melbourne case - we will have to wait and see - but in Melbourne I don't know any judge who would support such an application.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
:
in Melbourne I don't know any judge who would support such an application.
That really demonstrates the bias doesn't it? That we could know the judges decision before the case starts. This stuff really annoys me when we mix law and medicine. We need medical court with trained scientists and medical professionals presiding.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
As a trained scientist with a medical background, I say not a bias. It's a factual analysis.
Does not mean it's always the best choice or vaccinations are perfect, but I would say that without knowing the cade, the mother is an overreacting crackpot and they should vaccinate.
Akin the sterilisation or gender reassignment my bottom.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
Coming from a legal background I agree.
Meow, I don't think the comment about the Judges meant (happy to stand corrected tend of course) to demonstrate bias on part of the judiciary. Having made comments along those lines myself over the years, all I think she meant was that the Mother's Application and the current legislation and case law are so far apart on the issue that a Judge would have a very long and complex path to forge to find in favour of the Mother.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
I feel for both parents. It is horrible to have another person decide on a medical decision for your kids, particularly if your beliefs are dismissed.
I see correlation to delayed cord clamping and many hospital's policy. This was something particularly important to me, and my stated wishes were completely ignored and my child's cord clamped prematurely. For those who don't see cord blood as important, this is not a big deal. For me, i feel my baby was robbed, and her future health put at greater risk for absolutely no benefit. It was devastating then, and remains hurtful today.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
Is nobody else actually not more concerned with this statement?
:
Under the Family Court Act, special medical procedures include sterilising intellectually-disabled girls, gender reassignment surgery, and lifesaving techniques opposed on religious grounds.
Are we really only sterilising the females with intellectual disabilities? I would like to hear the explanation on that one, personally.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
If a woman cannot care for a child and is so mentally troubled/disabled she cannot make a legal decision, a court can decide it is best for her to be sterilised to prevent the problems to the woman of an accidental pregnancy.
Men cannot get pregnant.
It is not about eugenics, nor forced sterilisation of an otherwise able mother. It's about caring for best intrest of the woman and the future babies, or no future babies.
Explaining the reason, not morally commenting on it.
Re: How big a medical decision / process is vaccinating ?
For a woman with intellectual disabilities to have tubal ligation, she and/or her family must go through the Courts to get permission. It is often not easy to get permission, even when the woman is requesting it.
i don't know the status for males wanting vasectomy.
