Enforced vaccination

[Gob]

A JUDGE has ordered a couple to immunise their eight-year-old daughter according to government health guidelines, in a rebuke to the homeopathic regime pursued by the mother.



But the father will shoulder the cost of doing so.

The mother had sought in a injunction in the Family Court to stop the father and his partner from immunising the child without her written permission.

She made the application after discovering that her daughter's stepmother had secretly taken the child to a medical centre to have her immunised against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, HIB, measles, mumps, rubella and meningococcal C.

Previously, the mother had been arranging homeopathic vaccines.

She told the court that she adhered to a ''simple and healthy way of life'', that included eating organic food, using non-toxic cleaning products and sending the child to a Rudolph Steiner school where the toys were made from natural products such as wool, wax and silk.

Most parents at the school focused on ''building up the immune system of the child through homeopathics'', she told the court.

But when the girl was five, she contracted whooping cough, and the father and his new partner became concerned that she was not vaccinated, possibly placing their new baby at risk.

The stepmother then took her to the medical centre for a course of traditional immunisations, with the support of the child's father, but without the mother's consent or knowledge.

This upset the mother, in part because it engendered feelings of disempowerment, but also because she feared the health risks of traditional immunisation.

She told the court: ''The homeoprophylaxis regime is more than adequate for her needs, provides her with immunity against childhood diseases and does so in a far safer and more risk averse way.''

A doctor in homeopathic medicine told the court that homeopathic vaccination was safe and effective, whereas traditional vaccination had short- and long-term risks, including a link to ADHD and autism.

But Justice Bennett accepted the evidence of a doctor at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, who said there was insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation to justify its replacement of traditional immunisation.

The links to ADHD and autism had been disproved by studies in Scandinavia, France and the United States, the doctor said.

Justice Bennett said the risks associated with traditional immunisation did not outweigh the risks of infection.

''It appears to me that the efficacy of homeopathic vaccines in preventing infectious diseases has not been adequately scientifically demonstrated,'' she said.

However, the mother has lodged an appeal.

The case is one of several before the courts that involve differing philosophies over childhood vaccination.

The Federal Magistrates Court was asked to intervene between two parents disputing whether their daughter should be immunised in 2010, resulting in an order for the child to undergo the immunisation program recommended by the federal Health Department.

[Sean]

A doctor in homeopathic medicine told the court that homeopathic vaccination was safe and effective, whereas traditional vaccination had short- and long-term risks, including a link to ADHD and autism.

But Justice Bennett accepted the evidence of a doctor at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, who said there was insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation to justify its replacement of traditional immunisation.

The links to ADHD and autism had been disproved by studies in Scandinavia, France and the United States, the doctor said.

I know which one I'd trust... Clue: It's not the hippy quack!
I'm surprised that he's allowed to call himself a 'doctor' in a court. Maybe he didn't though... Maybe it was just this paper.

If this woman thinks that placebos are a good alternative to real medicine for herself then good luck to her! There is no way however that she should be allowed to put her child at risk.

[Joe Guy]

If that woman were to need a blood transfusion, I wonder if she would accept homeopathic blood.

People who believe in homeopathic medicine are homeopathetic.

[Econoline]

homeopathetic.

Ooh, I am so absconding with that word...and using it every chance I get. Good one, Joe!

[Lord Jim]

That is good...

That's become my second favorite recently invented word...( My first favorite of course is, "ignoranus" )

[The Hen]

If the homeopathetic vaccines were any good, why did the five year old catch whooping cough?

[Jarlaxle]

That is good...

That's become my second favorite recently invented word...( My first favorite of course is, "ignoranus" )

Yer welcome.

[rubato]

Refusing to vaccinate your child is more stupid than refusing to wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle.

It's child abuse.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

There are parents that think vaccines are dangerous and don't want to risk harming their children.

Would you define that as child abuse?

[Scooter]

There are parents who believe that beating their children black and blue is the best way to instill whatever lessons they are trying to teach. Is it any less abusive because it serves what the parent believes to be the best interests of the child?

Although I would call the refusal to get one's children vaccinated as neglect (failure to provide the necessaries of life), rather than abuse (actively causing harm to the child).

[Joe Guy]

There are parents who believe that beating their children black and blue is the best way to instill whatever lessons they are trying to teach. Is it any less abusive because it serves what the parent believes to be the best interests of the child?

Are you serious?

You believe beating a child & not vaccinating a child are equally abusive?

I think you're just being a contrarian homeosexual.

[Scooter]

What part of

Although I would call the refusal to get one's children vaccinated as neglect (failure to provide the necessaries of life), rather than abuse (actively causing harm to the child).

was too difficult for you to understand?

My point was that it is not the parent's intentions that determine whether their actions/inactions constitute abuse or neglect, but rather the impact that those actions/inactions have on the child.