Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
Meanwhile in Ontario.  |
That case was back in March. Case commentary from CMAJ blog:
https://cmajblogs.com/victory-of-an-...set-precedent/
Quote:
While parents have a certain margin of appreciation in determining the nature and scope of medical interventions for their children, they must generally act in the child’s best interests. This means that decisions are not made in furtherance of the personal desires of the parent; all parental decisions are and ought to be assessed from the perspective of the child’s interests and welfare. As such, there are legal and moral reasons to view the parent’s decision-making authority as fettered, and with the potential to visit liability upon the parent.
Additionally, the best interests test is much broader than the medical perspective taken by the arbitrator and must encompass the child’s full circumstances. In this case, it should extend to the school system in Ontario which expects children to be vaccinated as a matter of course for school eligibility, and should consider the duties that we should expect to have in relation to maintaining healthy communities protected from infectious disease.
We argue that this appalling arbitration decision should set no precedent and should be ignored in emerging jurisprudence for its many shortcomings. It is vitally important to challenge ignorance, and to debunk false claims and poor decisions as they arise. A failure to do so gives space for falsehoods to grow, encouraging people to think them right-minded or correct. They are neither.
|