Say it isn't so,

Australian children to be sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law (http://www.naturalnews.com/z035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html)

Did you read the bill? What does it say in your view?

Don't have to read the whole bill... I can go to pages 135 and 136 and it's spelled out (209 b(I) )

http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au/Libraries/pdf_docs/Discussion_Draft_for_Mental_Health_Bill_2011_v3.sf lb.ashx

I know. It says nothing that the article you linked to says. It fairly standard stuff in a long list of stuff that the state takes care of when they become the de facto trustee of someone who can't manage their own affairs.

Odd thing Tom is I have heard nothing about this and being part of christian radio we are on the distribution list for a number of christian lobby groups. I also note the response date 9th March, unusual for someone to leave a protest so late as our leglislature leaks pretty well when there are contraversial issues to confront, so in the absence of local objections I going to say it is a beatup.

The section is very clear. A child, if deemed competent, can make the call about sterilization . It does not say parental approval is required.

So,

Let me put this in context from the document you referenced


DRAFT BILL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The Government proposes to introduce into Parliament
A Bill —
• to provide for the treatment, care, support and
Protection of people who have a mental illness; and
• to provide for the protection of the rights of people
Who have a mental illness; and
• to provide for the recognition of the role of carers in
Providing care and support to people who have a
Mental illness,
And for related purposes.
This draft Bill has been prepared for public comment
But it does not necessarily represent the Government's
Settled position.

So the Bill has to go to Committee as it is not finalised.

don't have to read the whole bill ...I can go to pages 135 and 136 and it's spelled out (209 b(i) )

http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au/Libraries/pdf_docs/Discussion_Draft_for_Mental_Health_Bill_2011_v3.sf lb.ashx

Hi Tom,

Don't worry it's not true. Your interpretation of that section is not correct.

Tut

I'm sure buried in other sections is legales that can be parced . I saw the link.. the link led me to the section of the bill I quote ;and that in plain language says that a child can make the decision if a sterilization procedure can be performed. If thre are other sections of the bill you could direct me to that makes that section false then please do so.

Wow, NK apparently thinks it's OK for a child to be sterilized without parental consent. The language is plain:


Requirements for sterilisation procedure

A person must not perform a sterilisation procedure on a person
Who has a mental illness unless —

(a) if the person is a child who does not have sufficient maturity or understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself — the Family Court has authorised the sterilisation procedure to be performed; or

(I) is a child who has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself;

So IF the psychiatrist decides a child "has sufficient maturity and understanding" no other consent is necessary under the proposed guidelines. No two way about it, that's perfectly clear, and totally, completely, disgustingly wrong.

And you guys keep saying we're the ones who don't care about the child after it's born. Oh that's right, you think 10 year olds should be shown porn and taught how to masturbate by Planned Parenthood so who cares about a little eugenics?

Wow, NK apparently thinks it's ok for a child to be sterilized without parental consent. The language is plain:My wife was the senior council for the Public Trustee office, this issue is exactly what this office does. Only when there is no family to be found, no holder of a power of attorney does the Trustee or in this country the family Court get involved. It would have to be a pretty strong case for someone to get sterilised.

Did you know that in the United States the state can put someone to death without parental consent? This is a fact.

So IF the psychiatrist decides a child "has sufficient maturity and understanding" no other consent is necessary under the proposed guidelines.
BTW you're reading that wrong. It's saying that sterilization cannot take place UNLESS the patient gives consent.

Don't bother karma they are like a dog with a bone, it is no wonder people in that nation make so many coc*ups in international relations

Knee jerk reactions, always. <sigh>

My wife was the senior council for the Public Trustee office, this issue is exactly what this office does. Only when there is no family to be found, no holder of a power of attorney does the Trustee or in this country the family Court get involved. It would have to be a pretty strong case for someone to get sterilised..

Your wife does this for the Australian government? I didn't think so.


Did you know that in the United States the state can put someone to death without parental consent? This is a fact

Actually, Planned Parenthood tries to do that all the time, kill some teen's child without her parent's consent. Otherwise, I don't believe we were talking about the criminal justice system.


BTW you're reading that wrong. It's saying that sterilization cannot take place UNLESS the patient gives consent

I read just fine, thank you. I know exactly what it says and you apparently agree. If a child who the state has deemed "has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself", they can be sterilized without parental consent. The OP source is exactly rightly, tom is exactly right, and I'm exactly right.

I read just fine, thank you. I know exactly what it says and you apparently agree. If a child who the state has deemed "has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself", they can be sterilized without parental consent. The OP source is exactly rightly, tom is exactly right, and I'm exactly right.



Well actually I don't think you are.

The PROPOSED Act requires the person to sign a consent form before any procedure can be carried out. This is a requirement if the person makes a voluntary decision to have the procedure.

In Western Australia the law does not recognise any signature on any legal document until a person is of majority age. In most states of Australian this would be 18 years of age. If a person is under 18 then it would be a requirement that the parent/guardian of the child sign the document.

If a child is a ward of the state then I would imagine the situation would be different.


Tut

Im sorry tut but if you think it can't happen then you better read this before you stat making blanket statements. It happened here in the United States.

Against Their Will (http://extras.journalnow.com/againsttheirwill/main_front.html)

Im sorry tut but if you think it can't happen then you better read this before you stat making blanket statements. It happened here in the United States.

Against Their Will (http://extras.journalnow.com/againsttheirwill/main_front.html)

Hi Dad,

I am aware American history to some extent. At least one Australian politician is considered an expert in American History a few others have a working knowledge.

For some reason we have to know about you but, you don't know about us. I won't go into reasons behind this, except to say it is an educational problem in your country.

Firstly, mine is not a blanket statement. It is a legal requirement. Either it is true that a person has to be 18 years of age in Werstern Australia to sign a legal document authoriziating a medical procedure to be carried out on them with their consent, or it isn't.

No blanket statement. It is true or it is false.

Secondly, Australia has never had a forced sterilization programme. I am not saying we haven't had some sort of eugenics programme in the past. What I am saying is that sterilization is not part of our history.

I know forced sterilization was part of your history. Just because it happened there doesn't mean it will happen here. We do things differently. For example, we have few constitutional rights to test out statutes.

Australia's contribution to eugenics during that time is worthy of debate, but the issue here is sterilization.


Tut

Im aware that there isn't an exact parallel between our laws. Where I have to draw the line is at the possibility that it could happen. And that is why when things are pushed forward as the quoted proposal you have to monitor them closely. Much of the debate and issue here is that it could happen. Im not judging it as it has already happened Im just looking through the prisim of time. To me what was stated in that proposal raises all kinds of red flags. Being caught early allows us to be proactive.

Im aware that there isnt an exact parallel between our laws. Where I have to draw the line is at the possibility that it could happen. And that is why when things are pushed forward as the quoted proposal you have to monitor them closely. Much of the debate and issue here is that it could happen. Im not judging it as it has already happened Im just looking through the prisim of time. To me what was stated in that proposal raises all kinds of red flags. Being caught early allows us to be proactive.

Hi Dad,

I am in full agreement with your above statement.

Tut

Well actually I don't think you are.

The PROPOSED Act requires the person to sign a consent form before any procedure can be carried out. This is a requirement if the person makes a voluntary decision to have the procedure.

In Western Australia the law does not recognise any signature on any legal document until a person is of majority age. In most states of Australian this would be 18 years of age. If a person is under 18 then it would be a requirement that the parent/guardian of the child sign the document.

If a child is a ward of the state then I would imagine the situation would be different.


Tut

No, I read it just fine Tut. I get that consent is required, either by "the Family Court" or "a child who has sufficient maturity and understanding" as deemed by whatever authority deems such things. Either way it can be done without parental consent on a person suffering from "mental illness", which was the point of the thread.

No, I read it just fine Tut. I get that consent is required, either by "the Family Court" or "a child who has sufficient maturity and understanding" as deemed by whatever authority deems such things. Either way it can be done without parental consent on a person suffering from "mental illness", which was the point of the thread.

Hi Steve,

I know you are reading it just fine but you are not reading it in relation to other relevant legislation.

Apparently, the wording you keep referring to is a reflection of Federal legislation. So you are right, a person under 18 years of age can make decisions about their own bodies regardless of what parents think or want. In Australia the law has adopted a competence test regarding the maturity of children to make decisions in certain areas. So in theory a child can make decisions regarding sterilization.

On that basis you would be right when you say this would allow a psychologist, Family Court or some other authority to sign the necessary consent forms for a child who wishes to be sterilized.

I have been advised that this is not actually how it works. Competency in decision making on the part of the child has only been adopted in principle. The law doesn't regard such matters as clear cut. It is not black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

In practice the courts don't recognise parental authority and a child capacity for decision making as some type of continuum Decisions in these matters will be decided on the merits of each case.

So it is not amatter of a child or some other authority signing the necessary papers and the procedure going ahead. So parents can have a say if they wish.

Tut

We would expect that these decisions would ultimately be decided by courts on the evidence as it could be expected there might be objections leading to litigation. I cannot imagine the situation where a child or medical practitioner would demand the procedure be carried out without further consultation

You might need to consider what are the circumstances under which a child might be sterilised and would wish to be sterilised. It is a rare event and I can only think of one or two situations where it might be recommended and all of them go to competency so I cannot see the child making the decision and that consideration should get away from the idea that such things are every day events cunjured up by Tom in his question. You would do well Tom to examine your own country's history in this regard before pointing your finger at others

We would expect that these decisions would ultimately be decided by courts on the evidence as it could be expected there might be objections leading to litigation. I cannot imagine the situation where a child or medical practitioner would demand the procedure be carried out without further consultation

You might need to consider what are the circumstances under which a child might be sterilised and would wish to be sterilised. It is a rare event and I can only think of one or two situations where it might be recommended and all of them go to competency so I cannot see the child making the decision and that consideration should get away from the idea that such things are every day events cunjured up by Tom in his question. You would do well Tom to examine your own country's history in this regard before poiting your finger at others


Hi Clete,


Good observations.

This style of American nonsense journalism doesn't go down very well in Australia. As you know we have journalistic standards.

The article itself is garbage from start to finish.

Consider the beginning; "Australian children to be sterilized without parental consent under eugenic laws"

Consider that statement in light of the PROPOSED ACT which clearly states at the beginning: "This draft Bill has been preepared for public comment but it does not represent the government's settled position."

Without stating the obvious deception intended I would ask," What eugenics laws?' We have never had any sterilization legislation. Other countries have but we haven't.This legislation( if passed as is) will keep our good record in this regard intact.

Yes, it is true our Federal Courts recognizes the right of a child under 18 to make their own choices when it comes to their bodies. And yes, it can be done without parential consent or even against the parents wishes. However, my advice has been that this is only accepted in principle. In other words, the courts will not recognize any clear markers in this regard.

If a child wants to have a sterilization procedure then the parents if they wish, can challenge the child's maturity and competency in making such decisions.

Tut

Tut it is a typical Tom beatup. Obviously deflecting comment from some other cause. The americans sterilised 65,000 people under their eugencs program and the Nazi said they took their lead from the americans and their abortion programs have killed millions. These are the last people to speak about these subjects

Hi Tut,

I understand it is 'proposed' legislation and I'm sure there is other relevant legislation. I just get weary of others here telling me I don't understand plain language. The language in the section I cited is quite plain, even to an American conservative.

Steve

Hi Tut,

I understand it is 'proposed' legislation and I'm sure there is other relevant legislation. I just get weary of others here telling me I don't understand plain language. The language in the section I cited is quite plain, even to an American conservative.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I guess you do.. Sorry ,I got carried away. I apologise for my comments about nonsense journalism. As I said, I got carried away.

Tut

Hey, no problem. We all get carried away at times.