Court Orders traditional (in preference to homeopathic) immunisation of child

In Kingsford [2012] FamCA 889 (19 October 2012) Justice Bennett determined a dispute between the parties as to whether their child should be immunised by way of homeopathic or traditional vaccination. The Court heard evidence from a doctor (Dr J) who urged traditional vaccination and a homeopathic practitioner (Dr G) who expressed the view that such vaccination involved short and long-term risks. Justice Bennett’s judgment contained this statement at para 110:

“This conclusion [by Dr G] contradicts the clear meaning of the position articulated by the British Homeopathic Association and the Australian Register of Homeopaths, which position is the support of traditional immunisation in all cases except those, impliedly exceptional cases, which are medically contraindicated.”
At paragraph 116 Justice Bennett noted that:
“From a consideration of all of the evidence, and in particular the evidence of Dr G and Dr J, it appears to me that the efficacy of homoeopathic vaccines in preventing infectious diseases has not been adequately scientifically demonstrated. Dr J’s evidence is that there is as yet not enough evidence that HP vaccines work. I accept that evidence as being accurate.”
It was ordered that the parties ensure that the child “be vaccinated traditionally according to a schedule of catch-up vaccines to be prepared by Dr J” (para 125).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,