[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[paraclete]

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

[TUT317]

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

[paraclete]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[TUT317]

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

[speechlesstx]

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