Blog Archives

TweetCOULD THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT PASS A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID LAW CAUSING CITIZENS TO BE DETAINED ON CENSUS NIGHT? Justice Gummow pointed out in the High Court case of Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 that: … it could not seriously be doubted that a law providing for the administrative detention of bankrupts in order to protect […]

Without consent there is no “Doctor-Patient” relationship in law.
The Informed Consent Doctrine is the cornerstone of the Doctor-Patient relationship.   It has altering the attitudes of a new generation of Doctors towards their patients, and its requirements are now reflected in consent forms that heath care institutions require patients to sign upon admission and before various procedures are performed.
Setting the Boundaries for the Doctor-Patient Relationship…..

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[1] as well as the oldest continuously published one.[1]

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.”

If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.

If you have a Criminal case in a lower Court as low down as the Magistrates Court (VCAT,NCAT, QCAT etc do not apply) AND you raise a Constitutional Matter AND the AG’s either fail to reply or reply in the negative for intervention (thinking your case is too trivial or lacks merit) THEN not only can the Magistrates Court decide the matter but the Prosecution CAN NOT APPEAL it unless granted Special Leave by the High Court.

Fair enough I suppose, but is it signalling a kiss good bye to the McKenzie Friend? They are related in that the McKenzie friend is the big brother of little amicus curiae in that little amicus would normally only put in a written submission for the Court to consider where as McKenzie friend gets to speak before the Court.

How anyone can challenge the No Jab No Pay Legislation individually.

This paper examines the legality and enforceability of the new Australian Government “No Jab, No Pay/Play” Legislation with the view of potential aspects to challenge the validity of this new law.

The Key for a public Interest proceeding seems to be that there is a genuine cause of action, which is legally arguable without personal interests at stake or expectation of gain and of high public importance

ANTI-VAXXER HOMEOPATHY COMPANY COPS $115,000 FINE FOR FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS about the effectiveness of the whooping cough vaccine and of homeopathic alternatives.

%d bloggers like this: