[tomder55]

Say it isn't so,

Australian children to be sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law

[NeedKarma]

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

[tomder55]

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/Li...1_v3.sflb.ashx

[NeedKarma]

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.

[paraclete]

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.

[tomder55]

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

[paraclete]

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.

[TUT317]

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/Li...1_v3.sflb.ashx

Hi Tom,

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

Tut

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[NeedKarma]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[NeedKarma]

Knee jerk reactions, always. <sigh>

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[cdad]

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

[TUT317]

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

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

[cdad]

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.

[TUT317]

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