Parents still on run after order to vaccinate Concern over vaccine reactions 'Hepatitis baby': DOCS seeks further

orders The couple fears the hepatitis B vaccine will do more harm than good. Vaccine battle: DOCS 'likely' to extend court order The couple believes the hepatitis B vaccine will cause more harm than the disease. Parents still on the run over baby's vaccine Doctors say the baby needs to be immunised within days. GPs will refuse to immunise children LETTERS TO THE EDITOR GPs want $18.50, or no vaccinations Docs threat on vaccine funds Children set to be big losers Parents' fear of needles brings back measles Rights vs risks; NSW authorities' attempts to force a couple to have their baby vaccinated against hepatitis B have raised the issue of... Parents on the run with baby Vaccine victory for rebel parents with a cause

2 3

5 6 7 9 15 16 17

20 24 26

a r

e n t

s t

o n

u n

a f

e r

o r

d e r

v a c c i

n a t

News and Features Parents still on run after order to vaccinate Kate Benson Medical Reporter 342 words 30 August 2008 The Sydney Morning Herald SMHH First 5 English 2008 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. HEPATITIS B A SYDNEY couple is still on the run nine days after a Supreme court order was issued forcing them to vaccinate their baby against hepatitis B. The boy is now 11 days old and can no longer be given the first stage of the vaccination, a dose of immunoglobulin. But Meryl Dorey, from the Australian Vaccination Network, says the parents are still terrified to return home because they fear child protection officers from the Department of Community Services will remove the newborn from their care. DOCS can no longer force the parents to vaccinate the baby, but have been granted parental rights over the child until Tuesday morning when the case again comes before the court. The baby's Chinese-born mother has hepatitis B but both parents believe that aluminium in the vaccine could cause their son more harm than contracting the illness. Hepatitis B, transmitted by blood to blood contact, unprotected sex, sharing needles and from an infected mother to her newborn during birth, can cause liver cancer and cirrhosis. Vaccinations are not compulsory in Australia, but can cut a child's chances of contracting the illness by up to 92 per cent. It is NSW Health policy that parents of all babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers are offered immunoglobulin for the child within 12 hours of birth and four doses of the vaccine over six months. Ms Dorey said the couple, with their son and three-year-old daughter, visited a GP on Wednesday in a bid to convince DOCS they were healthy and safe. "They want to prove that the children are happy. Nobody told them to see a doctor. [The father] decided to do it on his own because they just want to be able to go home," she said. DOCS workers have spoken to the couple several times by phone since they fled, but have been unable to convince them to return home. Document SMHH000020080829e48u0000y

Page 2 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

o n c e r

o v e r

v a c c i

n e

e a c t

o n s

Concern over vaccine reactions MARY MANN mary.mann@northernstar.com.au 410 words 9 July 2008 The Northern Star APNNOS Main 6 English Copyright 2008 APN Newspapers Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved Rise on reported side-effects from cervical cancer vaccine, but GPs say benefits outweigh risk A NORTHERN Rivers mother is desperately calling for parents to study up before letting their children have the new cervical cancer vaccine, following her 12-year-old daughter suffering seizures after having the jab. The woman, who did not wish to be named, said her daughter had come close to death after suffering convulsions, which she said started five minutes after the vaccine was injected. The case comes as Sydney newspapers have reported a rise in the number of girls and women suffering reactions to the Gardasil vaccine, prompting the Australian Vaccination Network to call for the vaccine to be recalled until it is proven to be safe. It was dreadful. Shed never had a reaction to anything like that before, the mother said. The most frustrating part is that we were doubted by doctors. They doubted the seizures were linked to the vaccine, but it was happening right in front of them. Alstonville naturopath Andrea Norman has been treating the 12-year-old girl since she started having the seizures and said it had been a traumatic time for the child and her family. Its a pretty mean feat to pretend to seize, Ms Norman said. A psychologist referred her to me, saying she was okay psychologically, and Ive been working to detoxify her system. Its scary, but not surprising as anecdotal evidence links the vaccine to issues with the central nervous system. However, Dr Sue Page, vaccination spokesperson for the Northern Rivers General Practice Network, said the odds that seizures were associated with the vaccine were unlikely, as they were not associated with the virus or the substance used to carry the vaccine. No medication is 100 per cent safe or effective, Dr Page said. But what you have to ask is: Does it work and is it worth putting a small number of people at risk to protect a much larger number? Yes, it is early days, but it has been proven safe or it wouldnt have passed its drug trials. People often think an adverse event is vaccine related because it is a defined event. Thats not always the case they owe it to themselves to get properly checked out. Document APNNOS0020080716e4790007a

Page 3 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

' H

e p a t

b a b y ' :

s e e k s

u r

h e r

o r

d e r

h e

c o u p l

e a r

h e

h e p a t

v a c c i

n e

d o

o r

h a r

h a n

g o o d .

'Hepatitis baby': DOCS seeks further orders The couple fears the hepatitis B vaccine will do more harm than good. 257 words 26 August 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News ABCNEW English (c) 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation The New South Wales Department of Community Services (DOCS) will return to the Supreme Court today to seek further orders over a couple's refusal to vaccinate their newborn baby. The boy's mother has hepatitis B, but the couple does not want to vaccinate him because of concerns about possible side effects. DOCS applied for the order last Thursday after the Croydon Park couple refused to vaccinate their son and went into hiding. The department was granted an extension yesterday, but have still been unable to find them. Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network, an anti-vaccination group, says DOCS is treating the couple badly. "I'm very concerned with what they're going through," she said. "Anyone who's had a child knows that that first few days after birth can be very difficult. Imagine how hard it would be if you have to keep moving to avoid the police just to do what you think is best to protect your child." Ms Dorey says the couple is being unfairly targeted. "It is absolutely amazing to me that with all the children out there who are being genuinely abused by their families, who DOCS says they don't the resources to actually work with, that they are spending all of this time and effort in tracking in tracking down a loving family that's doing what they feel is best for their children," she said. Document ABCNEW0020080826e48q00009

Page 4 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a c c i

n e

b a t

e :

' l

k e l

y '

e x t

e n d

c o u r

o r

d e r

h e

c o u p l

b e l

e v e s

h e

h e p a t

v a c c i

n e

c a u s e

o r

h a r

h a n

h e

d i

s e a s e .

Vaccine battle: DOCS 'likely' to extend court order The couple believes the hepatitis B vaccine will cause more harm than the disease. 233 words 25 August 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News ABCNEW English (c) 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation The New South Wales Department of Community Services (DOCS) will return to court today to try and force a couple to immunise their baby against hepatitis B. The Croydon Park couple has been in hiding since DOCS took out a Supreme Court order on Thursday to make them vaccinate their son. Doctors say the five-day-old baby is at risk of contracting the illness from his mother unless he is vaccinated soon. The parents believe aluminium in the vaccine could cause the baby more damage than contracting hepatitis B. They have the support of the anti-vaccination group the Australian Vaccination Network. The court order expires today and DOCS must apply for an extension. A DOCS spokeswoman says it is more than likely the department will apply for an extension. Doctor David Isaacs from Sydney's Westmead Children's Hospital says about a third of chronic hepatitis B carriers die young from cancer of the liver or cirrhosis of the liver. He says it is vital the baby be protected. "The parents are painting themselves as the victims and I think it's the baby who is the victim here, sacrificed to some crazy paranoid notion about the dangers of immunisation," he said. "The hepatitis B vaccine is incredibly safe." Document ABCNEW0020080825e48p0000h

Page 5 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a r

e n t

s t

o n

h e

u n

o v e r

b a b y ' s

v a c c i

n e

o c t

o r

s a y

h e

b a b y

n e e d s

b e

u n i

s e d

h i

d a y s .

Parents still on the run over baby's vaccine Doctors say the baby needs to be immunised within days. 400 words 24 August 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News ABCNEW English (c) 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation Authorities are still searching for a Sydney couple who are in hiding after refusing to have their newborn baby vaccinated against hepatitis B. The mother of the four-day-old baby boy has had the virus for several years and doctors say the child runs a high risk of contracting it unless he is immunised within days. The New South Wales Department of Community Services has taken out a Supreme Court order to force the parents to immunise their child, but has so far been unable to locate the couple. A DOCs spokeswoman says the department will have to go back to court tomorrow if the parents are not found. The parents, who are from Croydon Park in western Sydney, believe the illness can be managed more effectively than any potential damage from the vaccine. The couple believes aluminium in the vaccine could cause the baby more damage than contracting hepatitis B. The parents have the support of the anti-vaccination group the Australian Vaccination Network. The baby's father, who is seeking an injunction against the court order, was adamant the family would stay on the run indefinitely. One of the doctors who alerted state authorities to the couple's refusal to have the baby vaccinated, Professor David Isaacs from Sydney's Westmead Children's Hospital, said yesterday that the child's rights were being ignored. "If you do not immunise a baby in this situation, you're putting that baby's life at risk," he said. He said if a baby gets hepatitis B at birth he or she will become a chronic carrier of the virus. "About a third of those chronic carriers will die young from cancer of the liver or cirrhosis of the liver ... this is a horrible disease," he said. While vaccinations are not compulsory in Australia, New South Wales state health policy mandates that parents of all babies born to hepatitis B-positive mothers must be offered immunoglobulin for the child within 12 hours of birth and four doses of the vaccine over six months. New South Wales Assistant Police Commissioner Frank Mennilli yesterday declined to say whether the parents would be charged once they were found. "It'll be something that'll have to be assessed once that child is located," he said. Document ABCNEW0020080824e48o0000b

Page 6 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

e f

u s e

u n i

s e

c h i

d r

e n

Local GPs will refuse to immunise children ALISON REHN 412 words 10 October 2008 Daily Telegraph DAITEL 1 - State 3 English Copyright 2008 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved DOCTORS say they will stop vaccinating children unless the Federal Government reinstates a bonus encouraging them to do it. According to GPs, a government move to stop paying doctors $18.50 every time they vaccinate a child means they will be less inclined to do it -- and parents are going to pay. Neil Hearnden, from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, told The Daily Telegraph that one of the most consistent barriers to getting children immunised was the cost of seeing a GP. ``But because of the payments, the majority of GPs have been able to bulk bill,'' he said. ``GPs would be less inclined to bulk bill now that the incentive's not there any more.'' Dr Hearnden predicted that some doctors might say they are too busy to immunise. The view is echoed by GP Peter Eizenberg, who said the change would ``undermine the success of the National Immunisation Program''. Doctors will choose not to vaccinate, Dr Hearnden predicted, unless they are committed in a ``professional and ethical way'' to vaccination. ``But there's only so much you can expect a small business to do. Why should small business take a hit for a public health measure?'' he said. Dr Hearnden said that over the next five years vaccination rates could ``slip back'' from the current 90 per cent to the ``tragic rate'' of 75 per cent, as in the early 1990s. The axing of the $18.50 General Practice Immunisation Incentive Service Payment took effect on October 1. Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced the decision in this year's Budget. Over four years it will save the Government $83.7 million. A spokesman for Ms Roxon said there were ``multiple incentives still in place to encourage immunisation''. Nursing her son Rylan, just two days old, at Canberra Hospital, 29-year-old Tracey Backhouse said she believes in immunising children. ``I would never question it,'' she said. ``My first child was premature, and I understand the importance of what the vaccines are for.'' Australian Vaccination Network president Meryl Dorey said that paying doctors ``an extra bounty, bonus or bribe is wrong ... doctors need to be paid for their work, obviously, but they're not paid extra to prescribe antibiotics.'' ______________________________ >> Should parents have the choice to immunise? dailytelegraph.com.au ------------------------------------------------(Please note: The original PDF for this page may have been overwritten by a later version) Page 7 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

DTM-20081010-1-003-045912 Document DAITEL0020081009e4aa00004

Page 8 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

L E

Features LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 2,537 words 16 July 2008 The Australian AUSTLN 1 - All-round Country 15 English Copyright 2008 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved Pell is out of touch on issues of population, climate MOST TALKED ABOUT POPULATE OR PERISH? WITH his claim that Western countries are not producing enough babies (``Pell tells the West to make babies'', 15/7), Cardinal Pell demonstrates how out of touch he remains in his assessment of major world issues. Apart from an unstated concern at the increase in the size of Muslim families, Pell, as national demographer, finds that more babies equates to happier families. Hence, no doubt, the refusal of the Catholic Church to allow for the reasonable use of contraception. Pell, now as national environmental scientist, remains sceptical that ``human activity is likely to produce a man-made catastrophe''. I struggle to name any environmental system which is not in a state of degradation due to the impact of man. In microcosm, we need look no further than the Murray-Darling river system for the effect that some 21 million Australians have had. Brian Tiernan Melrose Park, SA CARDINAL Pell's call for young Catholics to go forth and multiply because the world is short of babies has nothing to do, of course, with the high birth rates in countries of Middle Eastern appearance. However, presumably because life on earth is but a brief transition on the way to the next life, the question of providing food for a few more billion people is irrelevant. Bill Forbes Wingham, NSW I WELCOME the Pope's visit to Australia but bachelor and celibate Cardinal George Pell now hectors us to create more humans. I assume he has some slight theoretical understanding of the cost, time and emotion as well as maturity involved in raising them, when both parents have no choice but to work. Pierre Trudeau once said the state had no business in the nation's bedrooms, and that goes double-ditto for the Catholic Church. David William Hall Southport, Qld IF George Pell really wants to crank up his populate and perish campaign, he should encourage his boss to end the celibacy vow. Mike Yalden Kiama, NSW BOB Hawke, ex-Labor prime minister and self-confessed agnostic, tells Andrew Denton his main concern for the future of the world is the exponentially expanding population, which will see levels of poverty and famine beyond anyone's control. On the other hand, Archbishop George Pell reckons we need to populate or perish. A case of the agnostic realist versus the religious idealist. Paul Hunt Page 9 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Engadine, NSW POPE Benedict is aware of and concerned about global warming. Good. So how are we to interpret Cardinal Pell's advice to make more babies? More people equals more CO2 equals more global warming. Amy Wood Wagga Wagga, NSW THE Pope's visit to Australia and the celebrations centred in Sydney for World Youth Day prompt a comment. That millions of children annually die of starvation and disease, or get exploited, abused or killed in regional conflicts as direct and indirect results of overpopulation is more than sufficient reason for the Roman Catholic Church to dispense with its millennia-old objection to contraception; an objection that currently denies many Africans access to condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. To celebrate youth but at the same time condone unsustainable increases in world population is a combination of hypocrisy and lunacy. David Prichard Spalding, WA SOME things never change. Phillip Adams (``Drop your daks and show Pope you care'', Opinion, 15/7) is still caught in his adolescent fantasies featuring weird phalluses; this time multi-coloured ones and ones that glow in the dark. His rapid switch from poorly executed undergraduate humour to the high moral ground from which he lectures the Vatican about condoms in Africa, is unconvincing. Not only does he not know what he is talking about concerning AIDS and Africa, the little he thinks he does know is wrong. Surely, even an old cynic like Adams would be moved by the wonderful spectacle of so many vibrant, happy, young (and not so young) people celebrating their love of God. In contrast, his protest group with glowing willies looks a little silly. Frank Pulsford Aspley, Qld DOES Phillip Adams wear a condom over the organ with which he thinks? Most of the people in Africa (and India and China for that matter) are not Christian much less Catholic, so crudely blaming the Pope for what Adams proclaims are their problems is just stupid. But then clarity of thought and bigotry are mutually exclusive. And the old sectarian line of ``some of my best friends are Micks'' has never really worked as a justification for blind prejudice. John McCarthy Pearce, ACT MAYBE Phillip Adams, in his next column, could enlighten us as to exactly what he means by ``surplus human beings''. And what is more, who he thinks should be the judge of who fits into that category. However, if it was a Freudian slip or simply badly worded, maybe he could then apologise. Martin Fitzgerald Chatswood, NSW Monetary authorities can't control where money goes YESTERDAY we heard a collective sigh of relief on global financial markets as the US government moved to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (``US acts to save mortgage lenders'', 15/7). The financial sector, including central banks, seems oblivious to the unfolding tragedy of how these ``liquidity injections'' are finding their way into fuel and food markets. Instead, soaring food and commodity prices are being blamed on peripheral issues such as bio-fuel crops and ``speculators''. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars are being pumped into the global economy by way of easy credit to prop up ailing financial corporations. The problem is that governments and central banks can't dictate where this money goes. Financial corporations, on the knife-edge of insolvency, need to do something with all this easy federal credit to reverse their fortunes. Most high-yielding investments have evaporated since August. Thus the money finds its way into the relative safety (and potential growth) of food and commodity markets. Page 10 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Financial survival is the motivation far more than speculation. This is not free-market economics. The banks in question should be allowed to sink or swim on their own merits. Yes, this would be painful. Yes, there would be (more) shocking job losses in the global financial services industry. And it is true that equity markets, fattened to bursting by a reckless decade of cheap credit, would correct -- and rapidly. But such pain may ensure people in developing nations can continue to buy food for their families without having to compete with desperate Wall Street traders. Instead, fund managers are still getting their bonuses while the very poor riot for food or even die of starvation. The sad irony is that governments and central banks have almost exhausted their options to prop up an ailing industry, so all this suffering and misuse of tax dollars has almost certainly been in vain. James Meyer-Grieve Toorak, Vic The impost of isolation PATRICK Smith (``Spirit dying over on Western front'', 15/7), from the east coast, has his reasons for the declining health of the sandgroper AFL teams. This observer, from the west coast, has other ideas. I have always been of the view that Australia is too big and its population too small to indefinitely sustain a national AFL competition. Up until now, I've been comprehensively wrong but maybe the cracks are starting to appear. At a time when all AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou wants to do is to establish another two teams on his side of the continent, the boys in the West continue to labour under the impost of isolation. Chris Judd was a magnificent servant of the Eagles, but when the crunch came he couldn't wait to go home. Familiar surroundings, family and the company of old mates were a huge incentive to leave. And 5000km flights across the country suddenly became occasional rather than routine. Purely because of financial considerations, Perth will never host a grand final and blockbuster games will remain the province of the Melbourne teams, which will continue to see their away-games in the West as something to be endured. Perhaps the time has arrived when footballers in Western Australia are getting tired of the whole set up and its starting to be reflected in their on-field performance. Has anyone from the east taken the time and effort to ask them, and then listen to the answers? Max Vallis Wembley, WA I'M tired of the AFL being run as a money-making venture instead of a football competition. I'm angry about the constant Fremantle-bashing by the AFL and sections of the media. We (Freo) were accused of taking an overly physical approach into last weekend's game against Geelong, yet in the first quarter the umpires paid what must be a near record number of free kicks against Geelong, because they were playing the man and not the ball. John Brookes Darlington, WA Greer: celebrated or pitied? WHEN Germaine Greer burst on to the world stage nearly 40 years ago with her book The Female Eunuch, most women were getting married, having children and spending most of their time tending to their families. One of the exceptions to this was the spinster schoolteacher. These women performed a great service to society by tending to the needs of other people's children but were seen as sad figures and silently pitied. Greer and her feminist friends set out to change all that and liberate women from marriage and children and from all of the supposed oppression of family life. Now, 40 years later, she is an elderly, childless spinster who teaches at a university and and spends her private time tending to her companion cat and pottering in her cottage garden. Perhaps one of today's feminists could tell me: what is a female eunuch? Is Greer to be celebrated, ridiculed or pitied? Peter Bonar Page 11 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Findon, SA The case against vaccination YOUR article (``Parents fear of needles brings back measles'', 12-13/7) implies that unvaccinated people are responsible for a five-fold increase in the incidence of measles this year -- an assumption which is not borne out by the Government's own statistics. The Australian childhood measles vaccination rate has consistently exceeded 90 per cent for the past decade, with slight fluctuations depending on the cohort. In fact, the rate has been so consistent, it would be difficult to link it with changes in yearly disease notifications. The US, reported as having its worst measles outbreak since 1997, has a vaccination rate of 98 per cent. Australia experienced its worst epidemic in recent memory between 1993 and 1994, during and immediately following a large national measles vaccination campaign. The CDI -- Communicable Diseases Intelligence -- Bulletin shows that the number of deaths fro m measles in Australia has generally halved every decade since the 1920s -- a figure unaffected by the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1970. This is consistent with almost every other disease, including those for which we have no vaccine such as Scarlet Fever. These declines are attributable to improving hygiene and nutrition. In addition, vaccines have been associated with autism, ADHD, behavioural disorders, asthma, diabetes, eczema, epilepsy and cancer. The introduction of animal viruses via contaminated vaccines is of grave concern. Some vaccines administered to children still contain mercury, a toxin whose partial removal was the result of lobbying by pro-choice groups such as the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). Australia is unique in being the only country in the world with a computerised database that could be cross referenced with Medicare to compare the overall health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. This could reveal incredibly important information that doesn't come from drug companies. Meryl Dorey President, Australian Vaccination Network Bangalow, NSW Not guilty as charged MARK Aarons (``Recognise Indonesia's heart of darkness'', Opinion, 15/7) maintains that I ``minimised the role of the Indonesian military in organising, financing and directing the 1999 crimes in Timor, despite evidence to the contrary''. I'm always willing to look at evidence. Around the time of the Australian-led military intervention in East Timor, I was influenced by the views of the very able Major-General Peter Cosgrove, who commanded the INTERFET force. At an address to the Sydney Institute in June 2000, Cosgrove made it clear that many -- but not all -- members of th e Indonesian armed forces co-operated with INTERFET both before and immediately after the military intervention. I assumed then -- and I still assume -- that Cosgrove is better informed on East Timor circ a 1999 than Aarons. I should make one final point. Whenever I received visitors from Indonesia at The Sydney Institute during the time of the Suharto regime, I always raised the issue of human rights in Indonesia and expressed concern about the plight of the East Timorese. Gerard Henderson Sydney, NSW FIRST BYTE letters@theaustralian.com.au Cardinal George Pell has called on the Western world to have more babies. OK, George, you set the example. Alan Parkinson Weetangera, ACT Page 12 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

A World Youth Day visitor describes the Pope as ``the closest man on earth to God''. Maybe, although I'm not sure if that happens to be a placing that any octogenarian would welcome. Harry Foxley Kingsley, WA Perhaps Morris Iemma's $600,000 water cannon could be dusted off and used to spray the faithful with holy water next Sunday? Don't laugh -- I mean it. Roy Stall Mount Claremont, WA There's nothing weird about Brangelina naming their twins Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline (``Jolie well after twins arrive'', 14/7). After all, the names Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had already been taken. Hendry Wan Matraville, NSW Parachuting John Howard into Mayo may yet save the Liberal Party. Joseph Palmer Glebe, NSW If NAB ships any more jobs overseas, it will need to change its name to NIB -- National India Bank. David McCrae Neutral Bay, NSW It seems rather hypocritical to keep blaming Chinese factories for high levels of carbon emissions, when they are manufacturing the goods we buy because we no longer make them ourselves. And we still have the highest per capita emissions! Elizabeth Bleby Unley, SA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR GPO Box 4162, Sydney, NSW, 2001Fax: 02 9288 3077 Email: letters@theaustralian.com.au (no attachments) Emails and letters should bear a full postal address and day and night telephone numbers. Letters to the Editor of The Australian are submitted on the condition that Nationwide News Pty Ltd as publisher of The Australian may edit and has the right to, and license third parties to, reproduce in electronic form and communicate these letters. Letters online Letters from this page are published on The Australian's website -- and online readers have the opportunity to add their own comments. To join the debate go to: www.theaustralian.com.au/letters Prints of Leak cartoons For information on buying prints of any Bill Leak cartoon go to leakcartoons@theaustralian.com.au Page 13 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Prints of Nicholson cartoons To buy a print of a Nicholson cartoon go to http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/print AUS-20080716-1-015-225581 Document AUSTLN0020080715e47g00048

Page 14 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a n t

$ 1 8 .

5 0 ,

o r

n o

v a c c i

n a t

o n s

News GPs want $18.50, or no vaccinations ALISON REHN, CANBERRA 374 words 10 October 2008 The Advertiser ADVTSR 1 - State 3 English Copyright 2008 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved DOCTORS warn they are likely to stop vaccinating children unless the Federal Government reinstates a bonus encouraging them to do so. GPs said a government move to stop paying doctors $18.50 each time they vaccinate a child meant they would be less inclined to do it - and parents would have to pay. Neil Hearnden, from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, said one of the most consistent barriers to getting children immunised was the cost of seeing a GP. ``Because of the payments, the majority of GPs have been able to bulk bill,'' he said. ``GPs will be less inclined to bulk bill now the incentive's not there.'' Dr Hearnden predicted some doctors might say they were too busy to immunise children and would send parents to the local council instead. That view was echoed by Melbourne GP Peter Eizenberg, who said the change would ``undermine the success of the National Immunisation Program''. Dr Hearnden predicted doctors would choose not to vaccinate, unless they were committed in a ``professional and ethical way'' to vaccination. ``There's only so much you can expect a small business to do,'' he said. ``Why should small business take a hit for a public health measure?'' Dr Hearnden said that over the next five years vaccination rates could ``slip back'' from the current 90 per cent rate to the ``tragic rate'' of 75 per cent, experienced in the early 1990s. The axing of the $18.50 General Practice Immunisation Incentive Service Payment took effect on October 1. Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced the decision in this year's Budget. Over four years it would save the Government $83.7 million. Ms Roxon's spokesman said there were ``multiple incentives still in place to encourage immunisation'', but Australian Medical Association president Rosanna Capolingua said if the Government were serious on prevention, overturning the decision was in its best interests. ``It seems some of the Government's Budget measures came out of Treasury, not out of the (Department of) Health,'' she said. Australian Vaccination Network president Meryl Dorey, said the idea of paying doctors ``an extra bounty, bonus or bribe is wrong''. ADV-20081010-1-003-588019 Document ADVTSR0020081009e4aa00033

Page 15 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

o c s

h r

e a t

o n

v a c c i

n e

u n d s

h i

d r

e n

s e t

b e

b i

o s e r

Docs threat on vaccine funds Children set to be big losers ALISON REHN 373 words 10 October 2008 Hobart Mercury MRCURY 117 English Copyright 2008 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved DOCTORS are warning they will stop vaccinating children unless the Federal Government reinstates a bonus encouraging them to do it. According to GPs, a government move to stop paying doctors $18.50 every time they vaccinate a child means they will be less likely to do it -- and parents are going to pay. Neil Hearnden, from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, said one of the most consistent barriers to getting children immunised was the cost of seeing a GP. ``But because of the payments, the majority of GPs have been able to bulk bill,'' he said. ``GPs would be less inclined to bulk bill now that the incentive's not there.'' Dr Hearnden predicts some doctors might simply say they are too busy and send parents to the local council instead. Doctors will choose not to vaccinate, Dr Hearnden predicts, unless they are committed in a ``professional and ethical way'' to vaccination. ``But there's only so much you can expect a small business to do,'' he said. ``Why should small business take a hit for a public health measure?'' Dr Hearnden said over the next five years the vaccination rate could slip back from 90 per cent to the 75 per cent it was in the 1990s. The axing of the $18.50 General Practice Immunisation Incentive Service Payment starts October 1. Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced the decision in this year's Budget. Over four years, it will save $83.7 million. A spokesman for Ms Roxon said there were ``multiple incentives still in place to encourage immunisation''. Australian Medical Association president Rosanna Capolingua said if the Government was serious about prevention, then it should overturn the decision. ``It seems some . . . Budget measures came out of Treasury, not out of Health,'' she said. Australian Vaccination Network president Meryl Dorey said the idea of paying doctors ``an extra bounty, bonus or bribe is wrong''. Ms Dorey said many people were growing wary of immunisation. ``Doctors need to be paid for their work obviously, but they're not paid extra to prescribe antibiotics, why should they be paid more for vaccinations?'' she said. MER-20081010-1-017-124112 Document MRCURY0020081009e4aa0000x

Page 16 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a r

e n t

s '

e a r

o f

n e e d l

e s

b r

n g s

b a c k

e a s l

e s

Local Parents' fear of needles brings back measles Adam Cresswell, Health editor 868 words 12 July 2008 The Australian AUSTLN 1 - All-round Country 3 English Copyright 2008 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved A LEAP in the number of measles cases in Australia has sparked concerns that opposition to vaccination, or complacency over the need for it, could allow the potentially dangerous disease to stage a comeback. So far this year there have already been more than five times as many cases in Australia of the highly infectious viral illness than there were in the whole of last year. The overall number of cases, at 58, remains low in historical terms -- in an outbreak in 1994, 6000 cases were reported around the country. But it is enough to have alarmed infectious diseases experts, who had hoped the tally of just 11 cases in 2007 meant the disease had been all but eradicated. Measles -- a once common disease that can cause severe illness and even deaths in a small percentage of those affected -- has already re-established itself in some overseas countries. The US is currently experiencing its worst measles outbreak since 1997, while in Britain the number of cases jumped more than 30per cent last year. British officials have explicitly linked the reappearance of the disease to the increased number of parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated, citing safety fears. In 1998 a paper published in The Lancet suggested a possible link between the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and developmental disorders such as autism. The research has since been debunked and most of the paper's authors subsequently signed a retraction of their conclusions, but vaccination rates dipped as a result. The majority of this year's cases in Australia, 38, have occurred in NSW. Jeremy McAnulty, acting director of health protection for NSW Health, said the disease had been brought back by travellers returning from countries where the infection is more widespread, and was now ``circulating in the community''. Most of those affected were either babies too young to receive the first of two measles immunisation shots, or young adults who had left school before the mass immunisation campaigns of the 1990s got going, he said. ``It reinforces the message that if you are a parent, to make sure you get (your children's) shots in time,'' Dr McAnulty said. ``Adults born after 1966, who aren't sure if they have had two shots, should get them, particularly before travelling overseas.'' People born before 1966 are assumed to have natural immunity, because the illness was very common until the late 1960s. Figures released by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance show there are a number of places in Australia where vaccination rates are well below the 90 to 95per cent considered necessary to prevent infections such as measles from spreading. Being in the same room as an infected person can be enough to transmit the infection. NCIRS director Peter McIntyre said the loss of ``herd immunity'' posed a risk not only to children left unvaccinated, but to others with cancer or other immune disorders who were unable to receive the jabs. For these people, the only way they could be protected from the disease was to ensure they were not Page 17 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

exposed to other infected people, he said. ``(Objectors) are often under the mistaken impression that if you eat the right food and breathe the right air, you will be protected against these things -- which is not the case,'' Professor McIntyre said. In Australia, the first of two MMR shots is recommended at 12 months of age, and the second at four years. The NCIRS has a toolkit for parents seeking information to help them decide whether to go ahead with MMR vaccination. Meryl Dorey is president of the Australian Vaccination Network, a national group that describes itself as ``pro-choice'', but which is regarded by many doctors as an opponent of vaccination programs. She decided not to vaccinate her two younger children after her eldest child experienced a reaction to a jab. She lives in Byron Bay, which according to NCIRS figures -- compiled from information sent in by GPs - has one of the lowest childhood immunisation rates for all diseases in the country at 70.8per cent. ``I decided that the benefits did not outweigh the risks for my family,'' Ms Dorey said. ``I think it's important for parents to do their own research and take their own decisions.'' Comment -- Weekend Health ----- SICK LIST ----Australia's immunisation blackspots Percentage fully immunised at 24 months (2005) Byron Bay, NSW ............................... 70.8 Melbourne Dockland/Southbank, Vic ... 71.4 Cottesloe, WA ................................... 73.7 Spring Hill, Qld .................................. 74.6 Sydney, NSW ................................... 77.2 Bellingen, NSW ................................. 77.6 Denmark, WA ................................... 77.8 Mosman, NSW .................................. 78.2 Fremantle, WA .................................. 78.8 Southern Mallee, SA .......................... 80.8 West Coast, Tas ............................... 81.4 Lismore, NSW ................................... 81.6 Noosa, Qld ........................................ 81.8 Ballarat, Vic ...................................... 82.2 Adelaide, SA ..................................... 83.1 Measles notifications Year ... Number 1991 ... 1245 1992 ... 1451 Page 18 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

1993 ... 4679 1994 ... 6165 1995 ... 1779 1996 ... 668 1997 ... 797 1998 ... 357 1999 ... 237 2000 ... 110 2001 ... 140 2002 ... 32 2003 ... 93 2004 ... 45 2005 ... 10 2006 ... 125 2007 ... 12 2008 ... 58* *Year-to-date Source: National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance; Government AUS-20080712-1-003-847024 Document AUSTLN0020080711e47c00039

Page 19 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

g h t

v s

s k s ;

a u t

h o r

e s '

a t

e m

p t

o r

c e

c o u p l

h a v e

h e i

b a b y

v a c c i

n a t

e d

a g a i

n s t

h e p a t

h a v e

a i

s e d

h e

s s u e

o f

News Rights vs risks; NSW authorities' attempts to force a couple to have their baby vaccinated against hepatitis B have raised the issue of whose rights need protecting. By Stephen Pincock 2,138 words 12 September 2008 Australian Doctor OZDR 21 Volume 00, Issue 00 English Copyright 2008. Reed Business Information Limited. All rights reserved. THE front page of the Sydney Morning Herald dubbed it a vaccine battle. Exactly what kind of battle depended on your perspective. For some, it was a nasty case of David and Goliath. For others, the tussle was between rational medicine and the unfounded fears of parents that threatened the life of their baby. The story below the headline was certainly dramatic. Late one afternoon last month, a Croydon Park couple bundled up their two-day-old baby son and three-year-old daughter and went into hiding. The couple were pursued by state government employees who planned, under the authority of a Supreme Court order, to take their son and have him immunised for hepatitis B, against the parents' will. The mother, originally from China, had been diagnosed as a carrier of the disease several years ago, so the risk of transmission to the newborn was high and the best chance of preventing infection was vaccination soon after birth. But the couple, who had links to an organisation that urges parents to consider the risks of immunisation, feared that aluminium in the vaccine could cause the child more harm than the virus would. Clearly the medical staff on the postnatal ward of Royal PrinceAlfredHospital disagreed. The hepatitis B vaccine, after all, has been given to countless thousands over decades with low rates of adverse events. The staff reportedly told the parents they would be arrested and would lose custody of their son if they took him home without having him vaccinated. Doctors, including Professor David Isaacs from the Children's Hospital at Westmead, also contacted the NSW Department of Community Services to alert them to the case. The family were allowed to leave the hospital after the couple promised to visit a GP in the company of a DOCS officer the next day, to get more information about the risks involved in the vaccination. But the family didn't show up for the appointment at an Ashfield medical centre, and the father was told DOCS workers were on their way to remove the baby for vaccination. We gathered some things and fled the house, he told the Sydney Morning Herald . My wife is tired. She's just given birth and we are on the run with a newborn and a three-year-old. The tactics that have been pulled so far are unbelievable. But Professor Isaacs felt his actions were justified. Not getting this baby vaccinated is a form of child abuse, he was quoted as saying. In a 27 August letter to the newspaper, Professor Isaacs wrote: A baby born to a mother who is a chronic carrier of hepatitis B has a risk of between 5 and 40 per cent of developing chronic hepatitis B without intervention, and carriers have a one-in-three chance of dying young from cirrhosis or liver cancer The baby is the victim here, not the parents. AS the story of the family unfolded, it became clear it had raised many thorny questions. How, for example, can the interests of parents and children be balanced in these situations? When are legal proceedings appropriate? And how can thoughtful people who obviously care for their children decide that the risk posed by a well-tested vaccine is greater than the risk of cirrhosis and potential liver cancer? Dr George Hamor, a respiratory and sleep physician from the Sydney suburb of Miranda, raised some of those questions in a 26 August letter to the Sydney Morning Herald . Invoking a Supreme Court order to force the parents of an infant to agree to a hepatitis B vaccination is ludicrous,he wrote. There seems no comprehension on the part of the Department of Community Services or David Isaacs that parents have the right to refuse medical intervention for their children, Page 20 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

especially where there is no broader public health issue involved. Speaking to Australian Doctor later that week, Dr Hamor said his letter was intended to raise a couple of points. The first was that the risk [of infection and subsequent disease] was not high enough to warrant the draconian actions that have been inflicted on these poor parents, he said. Dr Hamor says the range of infection risks quoted by Professor Isaacs in the Sydney Morning Herald seemed strangely wide. If the risk [of neonatal infection] is only 5% and the risk of developing cirrhosis is one in three, then the child's risk is only one-point-something per cent. That to me is a small risk, not a huge risk. The second point Dr Hamor raises is a broader one about how the rights of a child are balanced with a parent's role as the guardian of the child's best interests. In other words, how grave does the risk to the child's health need to be before doctors or others intervene? Taken to an extreme case, would we allow DOCS to pursue families who feed their children unhealthily? he asks. Feeding your children on junk food three times a week would increase their risk of diabetes quite substantially. Dr Hamor thinks the child's life needs to be imminently threatened, or wider public health put at risk, before the decision of the parents is overruled by another authority such as a court. I think, for example, if a child needs a blood transfusion, the courts have a right to intervene if it's a life or death situation, he says. For the hepatitis B vaccine, he says, that criterion had not been met. From where Professor Isaacs stands, however, the balance of risks weighed heavily in favour of the vaccine. Some of us thought the risk of disease was considerable and the benefits of immunisation were clear, he wrote. (Professor Isaacs was overseas while this article was being written and unavailable for further comment.) That was a view backed by infectious disease expert Professor Robert Booy, from the University of Sydney. A mother who is both hepatitis [B] s and e antigen positive has a very high chance of passing infection to the baby at birth (90-odd per cent) and furthermore, infection at birth is both easily preventable by early vaccination and very likely to result in long-term damage without vaccination, he told Australian Doctor . COURTS are generally cautious about overruling a parent's wishes for their child, but the case of the runaway family is certainly not the first time that such a decision has been made in Australia. A recent report from the Human Rights Law Resource Centre notes that there have been various Australian cases where courts have ordered that children be given blood transfusions against the express wishes of their parents (and occasionally, against the express wishes of the children). The law in such circumstances is complicated and varies from state to state. In Victoria, for example, the Children's Court has jurisdiction where a child is in need of protection; the Family Court has jurisdiction where a child's wellbeing is at risk; and the Supreme Court of Victoria may authorise medical treatment in the child's best interests in accordance with its parens patriae jurisdiction, the report noted. The crucial element that comes into play in such cases is the degree and imminence of the risk to the child, says Dr Malcolm Parker, associate professor of medical ethics at the University of Queensland. In the UK, for example, there have been cases where minors have refused heart transplants and have been overruled by a court; in Belgium, there was a case where the parents wanted to refuse a polio vaccination on behalf of their newborn and faced prison until they relented, he notes. On that basis, he thinks the NSW Supreme Court was justified in making its ruling. Given the circumstances and the general principle of preventing harm to the child, there's certainly a good argument for making this decision, he says. Associate Professor Peter McIntyre, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, agrees. Essentially, this is a good example of a situation where a court judged that the child's best interests were not being appropriately served by the parents, to the extent that the child's future health and wellbeing were compromised, and of course such a decision would require a court order,Professor McIntyre says. This case was not about public health issues but about individual rights in this case, those of the baby to protection against a high risk of severe health impairment versus parental rights. Page 21 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

At the time of writing, the parents in question were still in hiding, but it is safe to say they probably don't see things in quite this light. It is also distinctly possible that the parents would not have felt so strongly if the treatment in question was something other than a vaccine. After all, fears about adverse events have been running particularly high ever since the furore erupted in the UK over a suggested link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr Parker argues that vaccination programs have become a victim of their own success. We're not exposed to large numbers of kids becoming ill and dying from these diseases any more, he says. Concern about the risks of the vaccine rise, he says, as we become more blas about the diseases themselves. One person who has spoken to the couple since they took flight is Meryl Dorey, president of the Austral ian Vaccin ation Network, an organisation that raises concerns about vaccine risks, and argues that parents need to think carefully before they decide to allow their children to be immunised. One of the child's grandfathers is a member of the network. Ms Dorey says the situation is not as clear-cut as Professor Isaacs and Professor Booy suggest, and that the parents in this case came to their decision after familiarising themselves with data that doctors were unwilling to give them. Even among the experts in hepatitis B, the benefits of the vaccine in this situation are not clear, she says. Weighing that uncertainty against the risks vaccination is a medical procedure and, like any medical procedure, it has benefits and risks is the job of an informed parent, she says. The final decision should be with the parents. She argues that parents, not doctors, are in the best position to decide what's right for their children. Doctors are advisers, she says. They are experts in what they do, but their role needs to be defined very clearly as an adviser's one. Dr Parker takes issue with the idea that parents should be given free rein to make decisions for children. They made a decision, but it's not analogous to making a decision for yourself, he says. He also questions the suggestion that the medical profession does not do a good job of explaining the risks of the vaccine to parents. The claim that somebody's over- or underestimating the risk needs to be subjected to the evidence that's available, he says. NEONATAL HEPATITIS B: THE FACTS * Transmission of hepatitis B from mother to infant results primarily from maternal-foetal microtransfusions during labour or contact with infectious secretions in the birth canal. * Transplacental transmission is unusual, and postpartum transmission occurs rarely through exposure to infectious maternal blood, saliva, stool, urine or breast milk. * Maternal acute hepatitis B occurring within 2-3 months of delivery has about a 70% risk of transmission, but disease occurring during the 1st or 2nd trimester has only about 5% risk.1 * Risk of transmission is high from asymptomatic HBsAg positive carriers with the e antigen. Carriers without the e antigen or with anti-HBe antibodies are less likely to transmit the disease. * About 10-20% of women seropositive for HBsAg transmit the virus to their neonates in the absence of immunoprophylaxis. In women who are seropositive for both HBsAg and HBeAg, vertical transmission is approximately 90%.2 * Hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin prevent hepatitis B occurrence in newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers.3 * Chronic infection occurs in about 90% of infected infants, 60% of infected children aged under 5 years, and 2-6% of adults. Among persons with chronic HBV infection, the risk of death from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma is 15-25%.4 1. Merck Manual , http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec19/ch279/ch279g.html 2. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1998; 63:195-202. Page 22 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

3. BMJ 2006; 332:328-36. 4. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51(RR06):1-80. Additional reporting by Sue Osborne Document OZDR000020080915e49c0000a

Page 23 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a r

e n t

o n

h e

u n

b a b y

News and Features Parents on the run with baby Kate Benson Medical Reporter 650 words 23 August 2008 The Sydney Morning Herald SMHH First 1 English 2008 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. VACCINE BATTLE A SYDNEY couple was on the run with their two-day-old baby last night after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B. The parents, from Croydon Park, fled their home on Thursday to avoid police and DOCS officers after they refused to have their son vaccinated at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. They told the Herald yesterday that they believed aluminium in the vaccine could cause him more damage than contracting hepatitis B. The child's mother, from China, was diagnosed with hepatitis B several years ago, but both parents believe the illness, which can cause liver cancer and cirrhosis, can be managed more effectively than any potential neurological damage from the vaccine. Vaccinations are not compulsory in Australia but it is NSW Health policy that parents of all babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers are offered immunoglobulin for the child within 12 hours of birth and four doses of the vaccine over six months. The father, a financial adviser who is seeking an injunction against the court order, said he was told by doctors and midwives on the post-natal ward that they would be arrested and lose custody of their child if he left the hospital without having the vaccination. The man said he and his wife had then left the hospital on Wednesday after agreeing to visit a GP, accompanied by a DOCS officer, on Thursday to get more information about the risks involved. But when the father failed to show up at 4pm at an Ashfield medical centre, he was told DOCS was removing the baby from his care for immediate vaccination. "We gathered some things and fled the house," he said yesterday. "My wife is tired. She's just given birth and we are on the run with a newborn and a three-year-old. The tactics that have been pulled so far are unbelievable." The court order, obtained late on Thursday after a DOCS officer found the house deserted, states the baby needed to be vaccinated by midnight that day, but the father is adamant he will stay on the run indefinitely. "I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all policy. He is a small baby [2.49kg] and they give the same dose to babies twice his size. I just wanted time to get more information about the vaccine." But he admitted he had also refused to have his daughter vaccinated for hepatitis B after her birth in 2005 and has not had her screened for the illness since. His father, who is a member of the Australian Vaccination Network, which lobbies against compulsory vaccinations for children, said humans were incapable of breaking down aluminium and the vaccinations presented "a lot of dangers and lot of big questions marks". But David Isaacs, a professor in pediatric infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead and one of the doctors who contacted DOCs, said the case had angered staff because the baby's rights were being ignored. "I am a strong believer in vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a form of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and awful outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when they can't make decisions for themselves." Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother Page 24 of 26 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

and "about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young ... I don't understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks." The case will be back in court on Monday. Document SMHH000020080822e48n0006o

Page 25 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a c c i

n e

v i

c t

o r

o r

e b e l

p a r

e n t

c a u s e

News and Features Vaccine victory for rebel parents with a cause Kate Benson Medical Reporter 464 words 17 September 2008 The Sydney Morning Herald SMHH First 3 English 2008 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. A SYDNEY couple have returned home from 27 days on the run after the Supreme Court withdrew its order forcing them to have their newborn baby vaccinated against hepatitis B. The parents, from Croydon Park, who do not want to be identified, enjoyed a celebration lunch after fleeing their home on August 21, two days after their baby was born. The family had been staying with friends, moving on every few days to avoid police. "It's just so good to be home again," the baby's father said. "We've been pretty anxious up until today but we've just had a quiet celebration together at a local restaurant because the pressure is now off." The baby's mother, from China, was diagnosed with hepatitis B several years ago but both parents believed aluminium in the vaccine could cause him more damage than contracting the virus, which can cause liver cancer and cirrhosis. The baby, born at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, is four weeks old and can no longer be given the first stage of the vaccine, but the parents agreed in court to have him screened for hepatitis B when he is six months old. Doctors at the hospital, who alerted the Department of Community Services to the case, were angry that the baby's life was at risk, but the father said that claim was "just garbage". "I was pretty concerned that I could end up in jail just for protecting my family because [the hospital] were being so heavy-handed and I just didn't understand why," he said. "I'm not anti-vaccine per se. I wanted to be 100 per cent certain that I wouldn't end up looking at my youngster on life support or having seizures as a result of the vaccination." The baby had passed a health check and had gained weight, he said. A spokeswoman for the lobby group the Australian Vaccination Network, Meryl Dorey, said the case was "a sign that justice can win out". "What [the father] did was within the law because vaccination is not compulsory and NSW Health policy states the vaccine should be offered but not forced on anyone, so to my mind, DOCS and the Government were acting outside the law," she said. "This sends a message to parents that when it comes to health matters, and particularly vaccination, they are free to make informed choices." Vaccinations are not compulsory in Australia but it is NSW Health policy that parents of all babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers are offered immunoglobulin for the child within 12 hours of birth and four doses of the vaccine over six months. Document SMHH000020080916e49h00034

Page 26 of 26

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.