TweetIt is clear already there is a legal requirement to advise patients of all material risks associated with vaccines and to obtain valid informed consent. However, there is an equally a legal duty to disclose a suspected adverse event which has occurred in the course of treatment. If a parent brings a child in for a vaccine, and […]
The Family Court Act1 provides that the Court must consider the best interests of the Child at all times, when exercising this legislative authority, s.60CA2 the Act states: In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests is outlined in Section 60(CC)3, this paper will examine the position of the Court when it acts as a parent, therefore 60(CC) Sub Section 2(b)4 is not invoked, meaning that there is no suggestion in this scenario of the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence, just an ordinary loving home, perhaps with parents who can not agree on this issue and need the Court to decide.
the defendant must adduce proofs that raise a “more probable than not” inference in favour of what it urges; there must be a reasonable and definite inference available on the whole of the evidence; there must be something more than conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability. And in assessing whether the defendant has satisfied its obligation, the Court must take into account the gravity of the matters alleged….
There is an interesting matter that I have been confronted with.
A patient goes to see a Medical Practitioner (who is a Doctor registered with the Australian Medical Board) about obtaining the Doctors written recommendation as to the start date for a treatment program to begin for her son.
In this case there were multiple injections involving 11 different types of medication that would be injected into the body of the 18 month old child. The mother was concerned about a scientific report she read in the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is a weekly medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals as well as the oldest continuously published one.
The Doctor would not give her opportunity to discuss science and shut her down saying “we are not obliged to provide scientific evidence as per legal advice (Citing name of Insurer). So now that science was off the table in things to discuss, the Doctor then discussed the risk versus benefit of the treatment, saying things can go wrong, allergic and other reactions can occur however these risks are accepted by the Australian Government who approved the treatment through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and “mainstream medical literature” says the risks are “vastly outweighed by the potential benefits.”
So sleep well tonight Australia with the knowledge you are safe from BioSecurity hazards, if one of our highly trained Biosecurity officers has reasonable grounds to suspect someone has a disease, they will initiate a “human biosecurity control order” which can involve the threat being decontaminated by vaccination, and most importantly to appropriate medical standards.
So both in Common Law and by virtue of legislative instruments if you are the Victim of a Troll on the Internet who hides behind an Anonymous account, BEFORE you commence action against the Troll you need to know their true Identity and the above shows you how, in law, the Courts and the legal system are here to ensure you get Justice and the perpetrator is called to account.
Issue: Judicial review of an Administrative decision, a guy claimed injury in the course of employment, so he found Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) which allow the Court to review the opinion of the Medical Panel made under Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013(Vic) in respect of the his capacity to work. The Medical Panel’s opinion had effect that his claim must
fail and he loses his compensation.
Liquor Regulation were not a proper exercise of the Governor’s regulation-making power conferred by s116I Liquor Act – first Government’s declaration invalid
A Federal Court ruling has found that an employer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct during pre-employment negotiations and awarded the employee $333,422 compensation by way of loss and damage.