|
|
|
This information is published here in the interests of Public Awareness
Department of Community Services –
Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare
Loss of Health Freedom
An Update To the Original Story by
Eve Hillary
This article was posted on November 5th, 2003,
Reproduced here with Eve's generous permission.
|
Important:
Before reading the update, it is advisable to read the original story posted 14/8/03.
The author asserts copyright, but this article may be distributed for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose please contact the author at: evehillary_AT_smartchat.net.au
|
James and Elizabeth Eastleigh had been forced to stand by helplessly while the Department of Community Services (DoCS) instigated court proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court for the purpose of having medical treatment forced upon their 11 year old daughter Lisa. The DoCS action resulted in a NSW Supreme Court decision which made Lisa a ward of the Court. The Judge then ordered chemotherapy to be forcibly administered to the child on the basis of a hospital oncologist’s recommendations. That doctor was Frank Alvaro, at the John Hunter Hospital Newcastle NSW, who in turn relied on a UK study to support his treatment. He had told the Eastleighs that without the chemo Lisa would have “no chance of survival” and with it, she would have “85% chance of a cure.” This study, with no control group, indicated only 5 year survival rates rather than a “cure” and it was disputed by three other doctors as allegedly being insufficient evidence to support such drastic actions as the forced administration of a treatment. The family GP, doctor Roehrich asked the Court to consider second opinions from other oncologists, but this was refused. Dissenting medical opinions were ignored and Court orders issued for 6 rounds of chemo to be administered while Lisa was forced to stay in hospital for nearly two months.
The family had been subjected to numerous Court proceedings, instigated by DoCS, who moved to deprive them of their remaining parental rights. By August they were on the brink of financial disaster and unable to retain their barrister or solicitor. With their backs to the wall they had to make a decision. Having summoned extraordinary determination they sought the views of advisors and launched their own defence at the next hearing.
On October 3, James, Elizabeth and Lisa’s grandparents left their farm and headed for the NSW Supreme Court building in Sydney. On the 1st of October they had gone to the hospital and taken their daughter home. Surprisingly the hospital staff did not attempt to prevent this. Lisa was now in the care of her family and by all accounts relieved and happy to be home. By then the Gloucester town’s people had rallied round with offers of help and support. With some help, James had lodged his affidavits with the Supreme Court. What happened next was nothing short of inexplicable in rational terms. James launched into an impassioned and devastatingly honest plea to His Honour. He had backed up his claims with his affidavits, which stated that he and his wife were reasserting their rights as parents. They intended to have Lisa at home in their care. They refused to enter into any agreements with the department of Community Services; they would not give up their rights to their daughter. They intended to reassert their rights to seek second opinions for any medical treatment pertaining to their daughter. They reasserted their rights to see evidence of any treatment prior to its use on their daughter. They reasserted their rights to have a GP of their choice treat their daughter. For a few moments their boldness hung in the courtroom while the Judge deliberated.
In an extraordinary turn of events the Eastleighs were granted many of their requests.
Lisa has sustained damage to some of her organs from the enforced treatment, but has returned to school where she tries to keep up physically as well as she can in her weakened condition. She has recurrent nightmares of being taken away from her parents. However, her vitality is slowly improving.
James and Elizabeth are delighted to have their daughter back. They claim their family has been changed by the experience. They are hyper vigilant and adamant they will not allow unauthorised persons on their property. They claim to have less trust in persons and institutions they once thought were here to help people. They believe their traumatic experiences may not be over, as Lisa is still technically a ward of the Court. The Eastleighs have prepared themselves for the possibility of having to defend their rights in the future.
For Further updates go to
www.evehillary.org.
|
|
|
