|
|
Post by fish on Nov 30, 2022 20:24:13 GMT 12
There will be a full hearing next week into a baby at the centre of a High Court case taken by Te Whatu Ora over the parents' insistence he is treated with blood from a donor not vaccinated against Covid-19. This issue popped up on my FB early in the week, and now it has gone full MSM. It really coalesces the entire vaccines / mandates / govt policy issues over freedom of choice. It is obviously highly emotive, with a sick 4 month old baby requiring open heart surgery. The parents sticking point is blood transfusions from people who have been jabbed. So the Ministry of Health is seeking legal custody of the baby. It is completely beyond me why they don't just get some blood from someone that isn't jabbed. The parents have screened several donors and they are lined up ready to go. Labtests charge $57 to draw blood, taking the parents to the High Court is going to cost loads more than the cost of a one off blood transfusion. I'll bet a good bottle of whiskey the Court will Award custody to the Ministry of Health. But what is really irking me is how simply this could be resolved. Giving blood is very simple. I did it loads before I got mad cow disease (or ate steak in the UK or whatever the risk was). Clearly I'm missing some angle to this issue. There has to be some reason the Ministry of Health just didn't do a one off blood transfusion, kept this all on the quiet, and saved the kid. It would appear there is some 'principle' at stake, or they don't want to set a precedence, or some other twaddlebollocks. I'm really hoping the Judge will just bang some heads together and tell the Ministry of Health to get some jab free blood from the many donors already lined up and screened. It is a nonsense this making it to Court, let alone becoming an issue in the first place. Casual observers may note that both Sue Grey and Liz Gunn are standing either side of the parents. Both have profile in the freedom movement. I am mildly concerned Sue Grey is the lawyer, as while she is very well intentioned, I don't think she is a good lawyer. She is too emotive and not clinical enough in her legal / professional judgement. www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479782/supporters-outside-high-court-hearing-on-parents-refusing-vaccinated-donor-blood-for-baby |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Nov 30, 2022 20:38:33 GMT 12
It is clear that politicians and pharma are pushing for a massive culture shift and want society to hand over their bodily autonomy and they will steamroll, slander, bully and intimidate anyone that tries to stand up to them.
This families situation became high profile so they want to make an example of them just like aussie did with Novak. High stakes either way the court rules imo.
From what I have seen on social media, the vast majority support the parents. Not sure how that translates in the real world however.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Nov 30, 2022 20:41:08 GMT 12
Agree re Sue representing them. Her heart is in the right place but I don't think she is a very good lawyer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 1:57:56 GMT 12
If the parents really love this baby they would have the surgery, regardless vaxxed or not. I support the courts/child health on this. Parents should be charged with negligence. Think it is Johevas who cannot have blood transfusions ! www.stuff.co.nz/ipad-editors-picks/9139314/Court-win-allows-for-life-saving-treatmentSection 37 of the Care of Children Act allows emergency transfusions without parental consent but the judge said it would not be appropriate to rely on that for on-going care. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Dec 1, 2022 5:03:52 GMT 12
If the parents really love this baby they would have the surgery, regardless vaxxed or not. I support the courts/child health on this. Parents should be charged with negligence. The Parents aren't refusing the surgery, its the ministry thats refusing to use the blood they want to provide. Subtle but extremely big difference. The parents have proposed a reasonable, practical solution. Its the doctors and governments we know best attitude that has put it in court. The implications of a win would be huge, it would be world news and destroy the existing blood transfusion model. Thats probably why the ministry is will to spend moonbeams to take custody rather than just get on with it. I'm sure the court won't want any scientific evidence to support the claims of the ministry and will not seek evidence to counter the scientific evidence produced to support the concerns of the parents, this has been the pattern so far in the high court. At least it made the news |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 1, 2022 6:41:35 GMT 12
in the 80's a new york? mafia mobster was in hospital for an operation needing a blood transfusion he was deathly afraid of getting AIDS from the hospital's blood so he demanded and got, blood from an associate of the same blood type however the associate had undiagnosed HIV from injecting steroids with shared needles which the mob guy got along with the transfusion he then sued the hospital for malpractice for allowing his unscientific fears to over-ride their medical knowledge www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-08-17-1992230124-story.htmlSources familiar with a Brooklyn civil lawsuit said Mr. Scarpa, known for his swagger and elegant suits decades before John Gotti, contracted the virus after he and his family rejected screened blood from the hospital blood bank in favor of blood from friends and relatives. Among those donating blood was Paul Mele, a Scarpa associate who already was suffering from the disease but probably didn't know it, the sources said. The donor has died of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, they said. Mr. Scarpa is suing Victory Memorial Hospital, where the operation took place, for negligence and malpractice. Also named in the $1.5 million lawsuit is the surgeon, who Mr. Scarpa charges botched the operation and failed to block the use of the tainted blood. The lawsuit says Victory Memorial and Dr. Angelito Sebollena should not have allowed untested blood to be used no matter what the patient and family wanted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Scarpa |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 10:15:00 GMT 12
in the 80's a new york? mafia mobster was in hospital for an operation needing a blood transfusion he was deathly afraid of getting AIDS from the hospital's blood so he demanded and got, blood from an associate of the same blood type however the associate had undiagnosed HIV from injecting steroids with shared needles which the mob guy got along with the transfusion he then sued the hospital for malpractice for allowing his unscientific fears to over-ride their medical knowledge www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-08-17-1992230124-story.htmlSources familiar with a Brooklyn civil lawsuit said Mr. Scarpa, known for his swagger and elegant suits decades before John Gotti, contracted the virus after he and his family rejected screened blood from the hospital blood bank in favor of blood from friends and relatives. Among those donating blood was Paul Mele, a Scarpa associate who already was suffering from the disease but probably didn't know it, the sources said. The donor has died of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, they said. Mr. Scarpa is suing Victory Memorial Hospital, where the operation took place, for negligence and malpractice. Also named in the $1.5 million lawsuit is the surgeon, who Mr. Scarpa charges botched the operation and failed to block the use of the tainted blood. The lawsuit says Victory Memorial and Dr. Angelito Sebollena should not have allowed untested blood to be used no matter what the patient and family wanted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_ScarpaAmerican Law and Legal practice has zero to do with NZ. Our Laws are based on the Westminster system. US laws aren't based on any logic at all, other than suing the fuck out of every one. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 10:27:46 GMT 12
If the parents really love this baby they would have the surgery, regardless vaxxed or not. I support the courts/child health on this. Parents should be charged with negligence. The Parents aren't refusing the surgery, its the ministry thats refusing to use the blood they want to provide. Subtle but extremely big difference. The parents have proposed a reasonable, practical solution. Its the doctors and governments we know best attitude that has put it in court. The implications of a win would be huge, it would be world news and destroy the existing blood transfusion model. Thats probably why the ministry is will to spend moonbeams to take custody rather than just get on with it. I'm sure the court won't want any scientific evidence to support the claims of the ministry and will not seek evidence to counter the scientific evidence produced to support the concerns of the parents, this has been the pattern so far in the high court. At least it made the news There are two distinct elements to this case, and I see even this thread has already conflated them: 1) Freedom of choice, like Religious beliefs 2) Is the blood safe? The classic line from the 'experts' is that there is 'no evidence' the blood is not safe. They never say if they have checked, if they have done studies, big, double blind peer reviewed studies. If you don't test for something, or you don't know what to test for, it is easy to say there is 'no evidence'. We have already seen over the last two years you are pissing into the wind argueing about safety. The govt and Courts will ram through everything despite overwhelming evidence that the vax either hasn't been tested, hasn't been proven to be safe, or clearly is not 'safe'. On the other hand the only legal challenge to have success against the Mandates was on religious grounds. That the vax was developed with the use of stem cells, the use of which is strongly against many honestly held beliefs. It becomes a Human Rights issue, not an arguement about safety and technicalities. We all know it is perfectly safe for Jews to eat pork and shellfish. But see how you get on force feeding those to a devote Jew. It is why the thread is called "Medical Freedom of Choice" and not "Medical safety data and studies into blood transfusions of 4 month olds..." Once you ignore the safety aspect and focus on the beliefs element, the arguement becomes more about the legitimacy of those beliefs. Are they honestly held? Is it consistent with the Bill of Rights to be able to consent to medical procedures (and by being able to consent, being able to refuse). That is the nub of the issue. If the arguement is about safety, the baby will be in surgery by lunchtime. If the Court awards custody to the MoH, then the whole govt is saying you have no right to choose. We may as well all get Chinese passports if that is the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 10:53:56 GMT 12
I am no medical expert and would be prepared to leave my child in the hands of medical professionals. Have had to sign a waiver a few yrs ago as the doctors needed to run a tube from the ankle towards the heart for antibiotics as babies Viens had collapsed .The risk was they could pierce a valve or something
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 11:38:01 GMT 12
I am no medical expert and would be prepared to leave my child in the hands of medical professionals. Have had to sign a waiver a few yrs ago as the doctors needed to run a tube from the ankle towards the heart for antibiotics as babies Viens had collapsed .The risk was they could pierce a valve or something Personally, I wouldn't delay surgery if it were my sick 4 month old. But that doesn't mean I want to force my views on these parents. I'm most interested in the freedom of choice. It appears in this country we have the freedom to choose, so long as we choose what the govt/MoH want us to choose. That is concerning. That is a clayton's choice. Where things get complicated is how far the 'right to choose' goes. Are Seventh Day Adventists forced to have blood transfusions on a regular basis to save their lives? or does the MoH 'let' them die? How does the Court decide if a belief is honestly held, and that the freedom to choose is paramount, even if it results in the death of someone else (a minor, who can't choose). Based on all of that, it will be clear that the Court will give custody to the MoH. What I still don't understand is why they can't just use the blood of the selected donors? Each and every batch of blood is screened and processed anyway. They have good traceability of each pint of blood, so surely they could cater for this request with very little effort? The paradox is that my mother in law requires heart surgery, but they wont give it to her because they say she can't consent to the procedure. i.e. dementia. But she is just fine and dandy. She asks me how I am 2 or 3 times in a row, but still lives in her own house and socialises a lot. Has stopped gardening and driving, but that is to do with mobility, not forgetfulness. So on the one hand the MoH is refusing a procedure on someone that wants and needs it, but is forcing a procedure on someone that doesn't want it (wants it done with certain blood). |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 1, 2022 11:41:42 GMT 12
Clearly I'm missing some angle to this issue. There has to be some reason the Ministry of Health just didn't do a one off blood transfusion, kept this all on the quiet, and saved the kid. It would appear there is some 'principle' at stake, or they don't want to set a precedence, or some other twaddlebollocks. NZBS isn't set up for it. It's also not even possible to detect from blood if a donor is vaxxed or unvax. Add to the mix there's quite a few individuals going around claiming to be unvaccinated who are actually vaccinated and fuck knows what the baby ends up with. They don't just take blood from someone and give it to someone else. Blood has to be screened and filtered because many many people are ineligible, I cannot give blood because I lived in the UK in the 90's. The screening process costs many $$$ and takes many weeks. When I first read this, I thought why don't NZBS just charge the family for the screening/filtering service, but that would open the flood gates - where would people stop? What if people started demanding no blood from gays? Or no blood from Europeans? No blood from conspiracy theorists? No blood from politicians? Under NZ law the health and wellbeing of the baby comes first. The parents right to choose what is best for their child comes second. There is plenty of legal precedence to this and the judge is about to serve them a cup of "shut the fuck up". Unless NZBS comes to the party and says they will process the blood of a person they nominate, which I really can't see happening, because if anything went wrong it would open them up to a lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 11:59:43 GMT 12
Clearly I'm missing some angle to this issue. There has to be some reason the Ministry of Health just didn't do a one off blood transfusion, kept this all on the quiet, and saved the kid. It would appear there is some 'principle' at stake, or they don't want to set a precedence, or some other twaddlebollocks. NZBS isn't set up for it. It's also not even possible to detect from blood if a donor is vaxxed or unvax. Add to the mix there's quite a few individuals going around claiming to be unvaccinated who are actually vaccinated and fuck knows what the baby ends up with. They don't just take blood from someone and give it to someone else. Blood has to be screened and filtered because many many people are ineligible, I cannot give blood because I lived in the UK in the 90's. The screening process costs many $$$ and takes many weeks. When I first read this, I thought why don't NZBS just charge the family for the screening/filtering service, but that would open the flood gates - where would people stop? What if people started demanding no blood from gays? Or no blood from Europeans? No blood from conspiracy theorists? No blood from politicians? Under NZ law the health and wellbeing of the baby comes first. The parents right to choose what is best for their child comes second. There is plenty of legal precedence to this and the judge is about to serve them a cup of "shut the fuck up". Unless NZBS comes to the party and says they will process the blood of a person they nominate, which I really can't see happening, because if anything went wrong it would open them up to a lawsuit. I don't think we are going to have a particularly good debate Duckmaster. I'm going to have to agree with you on the guts of this. it certainly looks like a straight forward issue from the legal point of view. One thing I am a little worried about / interested in. How much influence are the hangers on having on the couple? There are some individuals involved who are effectively professionals, so there are vested interests here. I'm really not comfortable with a 4 month baby being the porn in a wider shit-fight. It may be the parents absolute conviction this is right, and they have approached the known professionals for support. We obviously wont know that. I'll bet a good bottle of whisky somewhere there is donations flooding in, i.e. somewhere money is involved. That is most likely legit, but where there is money in addition to emotion, I always get uncomfortable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 12:24:45 GMT 12
If the parents want to DICTATE the blood used go private. While using public hospitals accept what they say or use.End of story for me. Where does it end?? I want blood from a white vaxxed person not someone straight out of the tree. The blood is screened,if concerned use plasma? www.nzblood.co.nz/become-a-donor/am-i-eligible/eligibility-quiz/There is no mention of being vaxed or not. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 12:34:26 GMT 12
If the parents want to DICTATE the blood used go private. While using public hospitals accept what they say or use.End of story for me. Where does it end?? I want blood from a white vaxxed person not someone straight out of the tree. The blood is screened,if concerned use plasma? www.nzblood.co.nz/become-a-donor/am-i-eligible/eligibility-quiz/There is no mention of being vaxed or not. Can't go private. Private don't offer heart surgery for babies. |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 1, 2022 13:02:05 GMT 12
and i doubt even private would be willing to use whatever blood you were happy with for someone else
the parents are the legal guardians of the baby but that doesn't allow them to authorize someone else to perform an unsafe procedure on the child
|
|
