He cited two cases involving successful temporary guardianship applications for ill children whose parents refused blood transfusions, commonly occurring within Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“What we have is loving parents … with beliefs that contrast with the medical profession’s views based on science,” White said.
Arguing for the parents, Nelson lawyer Sue Grey sought an order for the NZ Blood Service to establish a tailored donor service for the Baby W to receive blood exclusively from unvaccinated donors.
Lawyer for the blood service, Adam Ross KC, said an order for tailored services was exceptional and without precedent. “There’s also a slippery slope element to it,” he said.
In his conclusion of the 23-page judgment, Justice Gault said he accepted the parents of the baby had genuine concerns about the risk of using blood from vaccinated donors but the parents’ alternative proposal was not viable.
“I cannot conclude it is a safe alternative that is in [the baby’s] best interests,” the judgment read.
In a last minute ‘minute’ issued by Justice Gault a day later, Grey argued there was no immediate risk for Baby W, that time could be taken to ensure all options were properly considered, and any decision should not allow authorities to uplift the “frail but thriving baby from his breastfeeding mother”.
Grey cited “new information and new expert evidence”, as well as the UN Convention on the Care of the Child, the UN Convention on People with Disabilities, the NZ Bill of Rights Act, and the Human Rights Act.
Justice Gault extended the orders, saying: “While my orders reserved leave to the parties to apply to the court for a review of [the original] orders should this be warranted, that does not extend to re-opening the substantive case in the manner sought.”
What does this mean? It enables medical professionals to make an assessment as to whether it is safe for the baby to leave the hospital ward before and after surgery.
In a broader context, the landmark case has highlighted the ramifications of vaccine misinformation - even CNN reported on it.
You’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts
Tangentially, the Broadcasting Standards Authority last week released its latest annual report, revealing Covid-related issues accounted for more than a quarter of complaints.
For example, law and order complaints had spiked from eight to 21, driven in part by coverage of the Covid-19 protests. Just one of these was upheld.
In an official statement, chair Susie Staley said in the majority of cases broadcasters had covered “the vicissitudes of the crisis” correctly and accurately.
“Some of our complainants think otherwise and have mis-used information to support their opinions. The Authority has taken a very consistent line on this, rejecting such misrepresentations through rigorous research while trying to understand the factors behind such complaints.
“There is a difference between the right to share opinions and being accurate with facts. The co-regulatory environment in which the BSA works plays a key role in ensuring people receive accurate information from broadcasters that they can trust and use.”
Lowering the temperature
As an election year looms, it’s of little surprise Jacinda Ardern recently announced there will be a Royal Commission inquiry into the Labour Government’s handling of the pandemic next year.
“New Zealand experienced fewer cases, hospitalisations and deaths than nearly any other country in the first two years of the pandemic but there has undoubtedly been a huge impact on New Zealanders both here and abroad,” Ardern said in a statement.
Chair epidemiologist Tony Blakely, former minister Hekia Parata, and former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead will assess the overall pandemic response, identifying what can be learned, and how it can be applied if there is to be a pandemic.
I find it extremely surprising that in all of life’s suffering, vaccinations have become so polarising for so many.
I can’t figure out whether it’s the pandemic-induced hardship, likening vaccinations to toxic waste, or simply if not being told what to do that is at the heart of the anti-vax movement. Views, logic, and an understanding of science are wide and varied.
Imagine if the people behind the anti-vaccination movement put the same energy into ending gender, racial, or other forms of discrimination, or child poverty, or climate change, or crime, or exploitation, or anything else that doesn’t cause harm to society’s most vulnerable? The world would be less of a cesspit, that’s for sure.
