1 / 2

The Vaccination Debate in the Family Court

Childhood immunisation is a topic that causes considerable debate in the media u2013 and between separated parents.<br>

prping
Download Presentation

The Vaccination Debate in the Family Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Login Sign Up Childhood immunisation is a topic that causes considerable debate in the media – and between separated parents. Mr Hayder Shkara Justice Family Lawyers PressReleasePing - March 18, 2019 -The Family Court hears many cases in which one parent seeks for their child Level 2 255 Castlereagh St, Sydney, to be immunised in the traditional manner and the other opposes this, perhaps seeking another form of vaccination or NSW Australia 2000 none altogether. Contact Email Many people have concerns regarding the potential side-effects of immunisation, linking it to other physical and mental Visit Our Website illnesses. It is also important to note that although two people may have the same stance on vaccination during their marriage, one may later change their view after separation. For all orders concerning children, the Family Court centres their decision on the child’s best interests. Each case is Follow @JFamily_Lawyers considered individually. “From what we know from case law, the Court bases favours expert medical advice the vast majority of the time,” says Hayder Shkara, principal of Sydney-based firm Justice Family Lawyers. The court does not rely on general knowledge about arguments for and against immunisation. Each party must present evidence regarding the benefits or disadvantages of immunisation. “Vaccination is a major decision that affects the child in the long term, so in many cases the Court’s response is to make an order on parental responsibility,” explains Mr Shkara. Usually, the Court presumes equal parental responsibility. However, a judge may make an order for sole parental responsibility, either for all issues, for medical issues, or specifically for the question of immunisation. The Australian Government’s aspirational target for immunisation levels is 95 per cent. This is the rate at which herd immunity protects the remaining unvaccinated 5 per cent. PDFmyURL easily turns web pages and even entire websites into PDF!

  2. Immunisation levels lower than this target increase the risk of children contracting serious diseases. The World Health Organisation labels vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019. For five-year-old children, Australia’s national immunisation coverage rate is currently 94.67 per cent. View Related News Category: Health Region: Oceania Tags (meta-keywords): Family Law, Family Lawyers This press release is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice Copyright © 2017 PressReleasePing PDFmyURL easily turns web pages and even entire websites into PDF!

More Related