A mother has told the Family Court that vaccinating kids should be classed as a medical procedure similar to sterilisation and gender reassignment surgery.
Head. Desk.
The woman in question is taking her former husband to court – because she “vehemently opposes” his request to have their two children vaccinated.
Moreover, she is arguing that the court should define immunisation as a “special medical procedure”. This would give it the same legal status as gender reassignment surgery, the sexual sterilisation of intellectually disabled children, and – perhaps the most congruent example – opposing lifesaving medicine and procedures on the basis of religious grounds.
The parents – called only “J” and “P” in court documents – are scheduled to begin fighting in the Family Court on January 29.
The mother will be calling on American doctors to support her case (including a doctor with an appearance fee of $5000), and the court ruled in July that her doctors are allowed to test the children’s urine, faecal matter and blood before the trial. (The reason for that request is unknown). However, the court ruled that doctors could not test food of the children.
After this ruling, the mother lodged an appeal asking that the trial be adjourned, to give her “sufficient time” to “research the relevant law”, as she believed this ruling demonstrated “bias and error”. The appeal was dismissed.
Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace published on the court’s website, “Whether or not [it] is found to be a special medical procedure is a matter to be determined and argued before the trial judge.”
This is not the first time the Family Court in Australia has played a role in vaccination disputes between parents.
Last year, an 8-year-old girl who had secretly been receiving vaccinations from her pro-vax father – because he did not want to play “Russian roulette with her health” – continued to receive vaccinations after the court’s ruling despite her mother’s objections.
In 2011, the court was involved in another dispute between divorced parents, and ruled that a 5-year-old girl should receive vaccinations despite objections from her mother.
The fact that these cases continue to be seen in Australian courts is frankly a little bit scary – and evidence of the pervasiveness of anti-vaccination rhetoric.
That normal, everyday parents who love their kids and just want to do the best for them – but who are not doctors themselves – have been seduced by unsubstantiated research and internet conspiracy theories is incredibly worrying.
That these parents have been convinced so completely that they are willing to embroil their children in lengthy and costly court cases is even more so.
And it’s something we all need to keep fighting against, and talking about. Because it isn’t just a matter of principle – children’s lives are at stake.
Click here if you’d like to know what to say when faced with anti-vaccination rhetoric.
Click here if you’d like to know what it’s like to grow up unvaccinated.
Click here to see an example of how quickly dangerous and vaccine-preventable diseases can spread once the majority of the population is not being vaccinated.
What do you think should happen when parents disagree about vaccines? Are you shocked or scared that the Family Court are seeing cases like this?
Top Comments
As someone who contracted whooping cough at the age of 16 weeks, when there were no vaccinations for babies, I can tell all the delusional fools who believe the crap from the anti-vac groups one thing: you are letting your child grow up with mental illness. I almost died (as 25% did in the early 50s) and what the doctor had to do to clear out the mucous almost did as well. Fortunately I'm still alive and happy.
But when I hear the anti-vac brigade's delusional teachings, I hope a child can sue the parent who refused the vaccination if they have problems with illness later in life.
It is a waste for the family courts to be deciding on medical issues. The solution should be, only if both parents agree not to vaccinate, not one against the other.
If one parent wants to vaccinate (regardless of marriage, gender etc) then it should stand.
Problem is, everyone has a right to a day in court. It is a waste of the courts time, but really how does anyone talk sense to someone so ignorant that they see vaccination as the same as gender re-assignment?