Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

NZ Doctors speak out


Recommended Posts

On 9/06/2021 at 10:36 AM, aquaman said:

About time the medical profession stood up for the truth. Covid is one big bucketful of misinformation and downright lie's.

Yes I agree.  I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch but I'm very very concerned about the vaccination of children and young adults.  Particularly when their risk of serious illness from Covid-19 is negligible or almost zero.  Certainly less than the risk of the common cold or the vaccines.

Did you know that a parent doesn't have to consent for a child to be vaccinated if the medical professional deems the child is "mature" enough to consent themselves?

Please PM me if you want more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Did you know that a parent doesn't have to consent for a child to be vaccinated if the medical professional deems the child is "mature" enough to consent themselves?

Of course. The Gillick principle surely applies as with all health matters. But I don't really see how anyone, child or adult, can be considered to be giving or have given informed consent for this when at the best, they are not given accurate information, especially since to a large extent no-one has that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, curious said:

The Gillick principle surely applies as with all health matters.

I disagree vehemently.  A child's parents SHOULD NEVER be excluded from knowing what treatment their child is being prescribed and for what reasons.  Should the State take over all parenting responsibilities?  How many dodgy doctors are out there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may disagree but that's the law and has been since the early 80s. There are no doubt dodgy doctors as there are dodgy lawyers, dodgy plumbers and dodgy horse trainers etc. There are also childrens' rights and the Gillick test which requires a high level of understanding and decision making competence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes I agree.  I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch but I'm very very concerned about the vaccination of children and young adults.  Particularly when their risk of serious illness from Covid-19 is negligible or almost zero.  Certainly less than the risk of the common cold or the vaccines.

Did you know that a parent doesn't have to consent for a child to be vaccinated if the medical professional deems the child is "mature" enough to consent themselves?

Please PM me if you want more information.

Thanks for the offer of more information, but I feel on overload with all the info I have now. Have studied this subject for 18 mths now and my mind has not wavered re the hoax that the China virus is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aquaman said:

I think the State has already taken over regarding abortion and young school girls. I think young girls via their schools can get abortions without consulting parents. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's my understanding.

Again it's the law and you can consent to have an abortion/termination at any age. If you are able to understand the nature and consequences of a termination, health professionals must maintain your privacy and not tell your parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, curious said:

You may disagree but that's the law and has been since the early 80s. There are no doubt dodgy doctors as there are dodgy lawyers, dodgy plumbers and dodgy horse trainers etc. There are also childrens' rights and the Gillick test which requires a high level of understanding and decision making competence.

It hasn't been the law in New Zealand since the early 80's.  Try again.

If you know exactly where in the statutes the Gillick principle is enshrined in NZ law then I would be grateful to know.  As far as I know it is an interpretation of the law by the Medical council under the auspices of the Health Privacy legislation.  I'm happy to be proven wrong but it is my intention to challenge this interpretation because I believe it to be fundamentally wrong and open to abuse.  

There are children's rights just as there are parents rights to parent.  The attached essay is a discussion on the Gillick Principle with regard to contraception and consent in NZ.  It was written in 2009. 

Do you want the State to train your racehorses as well?

Gillick and the consent of Minors in New Zealand 38.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights 1996, the Health and Disability Commissioner1states “a child may consent themselves [to health treatment] if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and maturity to understand fully what is proposed”.

van Rooyen, A., Water, T., Rasmussen, S., & Diesfeld, K. (2015). What makes a child a'competent'child. The New Zealand medical journal, 128(1426), 88-95.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

There are children's rights just as there are parents rights to parent.  The attached essay is a discussion on the Gillick Principle with regard to contraception and consent in NZ.  It was written in 2009. 

 

Yes, parents and guardians have rights but that does not include making decisions for children that they are capable of making for themselves. Would you insist as a parent on say your 14yo daughter having an abortion if she chose not to? You are living in some other era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, curious said:

"Under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights 1996, the Health and Disability Commissioner1states “a child may consent themselves [to health treatment] if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and maturity to understand fully what is proposed”.

 

No that isn't law it is an interpretation which hasn't been fully tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, curious said:

Yes, parents and guardians have rights but that does not include making decisions for children that they are capable of making for themselves. Would you insist as a parent on say your 14yo daughter having an abortion if she chose not to? You are living in some other era.

Well the 14 year old daughter was obviously not "mature" enough to discuss contraception with her Doctor in the first place and one would assume that the Doctor asks questions about the father's age.

No I'm not living in another era - I may well be living in an era that has lost its way where as a society we place blind faith in bureaucrats and scientists but not as you are trying to infer one that is backward.

There is a distinction between allowing the child the right to consent and sharing information with a parent which may allow the parent to be involved in the decision making process.  The latter does not preclude the former.  In my opinion involving the parent provides an important check and balance to a process that has the possibility to be abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, curious said:

Long established in my view.

image.png.aca12c12449628fecda0a1fc7318c734.png

Did you read the essay that I posted?  It isn't specifically enshrined in any Statute.  As you well know any precedent can be overturned by a legal argument.

If you have a copy of NZ - Re J (An infant) 1996 2 NZLR 134 (CA) 145 then I'd be grateful if you forwarded it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't confuse the law regarding the right to an abortion to other medical treatments and the sharing of information.  The law and precedents in that area are still somewhat ambiguous and haven't been challenged.  Although the Care of Children Act 2004 links to the UNC regarding the rights of the child it is not clear how far those rights go at the exclusion of the parent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

There is a distinction between allowing the child the right to consent and sharing information with a parent which may allow the parent to be involved in the decision making process.  The latter does not preclude the former.  In my opinion involving the parent provides an important check and balance to a process that has the possibility to be abused.

Agree but whether that is a good idea or not, while to be encouraged everything being equal, is a matter of professional judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion a person that is 15yrs or younger should be totally under the control and power of their parents. At that age its a physical and mental impossibility to be able to make an informed opinion. Why you might ask, because they are still children no matter their perceived maturity. The State has no business pocking its ever growing snout in private matters. Its the same with this current bullshit of gender ID, just another matter where the State should be told to butt out.

  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2021 at 1:42 PM, aquaman said:

Watch the idiots lock us all up, bound to happen, they no nothing else. Just wreck the country, and control the minds of the snowflakes with fear and threats. Fook them, no poison jabs for me.

Yep.  I'm not getting vaccinated and I'll go to court and fight on the street to stop my child from being vaccinated.  Even if she supposedly has the rights to decide herself.

I have a really bad feeling about this mass vaccination programme.  That is magnified by the fact that I'm not often wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Chief, you no, these over inflated virologists that come out of our universities are as dumb as shit. No life experience whatsoever. The worst mistake was giving them a voice. They are that stupid that they want people that have already had this not deadly virus to be jabbed as well even though they have better immunity than those vaccinated. They should of vaccinated only the vulnerable and let the rest of the population get on with life. Instead, the dingbats did young and healthy boarder workers and neglected those that this mild virus can kill. Still the rest homes wait, no jab for them as yet, and these are the very people that this will impact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Agree Chief, you no, these over inflated virologists that come out of our universities are as dumb as shit. No life experience whatsoever. The worst mistake was giving them a voice. They are that stupid that they want people that have already had this not deadly virus to be jabbed as well even though they have better immunity than those vaccinated. They should of vaccinated only the vulnerable and let the rest of the population get on with life. Instead, the dingbats did young and healthy boarder workers and neglected those that this mild virus can kill. Still the rest homes wait, no jab for them as yet, and these are the very people that this will impact.

Yes I thought the same in Aus. very slow to get the vaccines to rest homes, the people that are in most risk. and keep shutting down cities and internal movement everytime a hotel quarantine gets broken. Sydney in disarray currently , as is 1 million folks school holiday plans due to start after today. all getting a bit silly. As you say , treat/isolate the elderly to keep safe as possible, and let the people get on with their lives.

UK are trying to get on with it and get back to Royal Ascot , football and of course their work as much as possible , even though the daily UK Daily covid cases number has risen to 16,000 positive per day. There's only 20 deaths per day average. (103 past seven days) so doesn't seem as deadly as what was made out, it just seems to compare similar to the Many of strains of flu, that occur world-wide every year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Agree Chief, you no, these over inflated virologists that come out of our universities are as dumb as shit. No life experience whatsoever. The worst mistake was giving them a voice. They are that stupid that they want people that have already had this not deadly virus to be jabbed as well even though they have better immunity than those vaccinated. They should of vaccinated only the vulnerable and let the rest of the population get on with life. Instead, the dingbats did young and healthy boarder workers and neglected those that this mild virus can kill. Still the rest homes wait, no jab for them as yet, and these are the very people that this will impact.

In my opinion Professor's Baker and Wilson are frauds.  You only have to look at their research history.  I remember when at University for both my degrees there was probably only one in ten of the University staff that you would class amongst the scientific elite.

Both Baker and Wilson have mixed with some shady characters in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...