Schoolgirl gets €4,000 for unauthorised swine flu jab.

opinion guy

When will they invent a troll vaccine ?

Dave!

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the quality of the water I use, but may other EU countries seem to manage quite nicely without flouridation, less incidences of cancer, for one thing...

They probably eat less potatoes and drink less Guinness than us too. It's rather speculative to try and pin higher cancer incidences on water fluoridation. Necessary or not is one thing, causing cancer is quite another.

Overheal wrote: »

Plenty of other vaccines have been correlated to increases in child autism as well.

Not voodoo science.

Work wants to offer me free flu shots. **** that ****. Once you take one of those shots you pretty much require a new shot every year to avoid the flu. Why the **** do I want to vaccinate against something I've never caught anyway?

I'm sure I've seen you post some sensible stuff before, surely you're on the wind-up with this nonsense?

FWIW I think it's probably fair enough that the parent be allowed sue in this case.

AtomicHorror

Overheal wrote: »

Plenty of other vaccines have been correlated to increases in child autism as well.

No they haven't, and anyone who can show us a causal agent for the rise in autism diagnoses will get a Nobel prize for it.

Not voodoo science.

Overheal wrote: »

Work wants to offer me free flu shots. **** that ****. Once you take one of those shots you pretty much require a new shot every year to avoid the flu.

No, you don't. It has no influence on your susceptibility to influenza in subsequent years- it might even have a slight protective effect if the strains are similar enough.

Overheal wrote: »

Why the **** do I want to vaccinate against something I've never caught anyway?

What? Why would you vaccinate against something you had caught? You'd already be immune to it.

Red Pepper

Deleted User wrote: »

Most vaccinations I would agree with you about that, but not the H1N1. I wouldn't choose to give that to any child of mine unless they were in a high risk category. We were offered the vaccination, but pretty much advised not to get it.

Yes that vaccine was rushed out my the pharmas with insufficient testing. I hope they get sued bigtime.

AtomicHorror

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're saying you wouldn't be angry if your child was medicated against your wishes, when you had expressly stated that you didn't want it to happen?

No, that's not what I said. I said that in the event that my child were medicated in the absence of my permission, I would not react with anger. If I had specifically rescinded my permission I would have more of a problem with it, but I still wouldn't view it as the sort of assault that many here seem to. Perhaps because I don't have the same issues with "jabs" that many have.

Madam_X

Pottler wrote: »

Sitting ducks? My kids are heavily encouraged not to get them, mainly by me, and mainly because I've some idea of the guff that is associated with them and what goes into them. The term "Experimental" springs to mind. There's an awful lot of "ohh, we didn't know that was a side effect, how unusual" involved, IMO.

So you aren't in favour of them not because of actual evidence, just because you have a "feeling" they're dodgy and the government has an agenda?
Obviously up to you, but I'd have thought the logical thing to do would be to take advice from science and health professionals rather than go with a mere hunch you personally have, based on... not really anything.

I can understand people's concerns about the H1N1 vaccine (based on non tinfoil hat comments to this thread) but vaccines in general...?

Madam_X

jluv wrote: »

Noone should administer any meds to your child without your permission.Fact..

Not a fact. To not administer penicillin if the child is developing meningitis in the absence of their parent (unless the child is allergic to penicillin) would be very wrong.

Jev/N

girl2 wrote: »

No offence, but in my opinion - €4000 is an insult as compensation. If someone took a child of mine and injected them with anything……I wouldn't be settling for €4000. Not by a long shot.

What would you expect then?

LoonyLovegood

A lot of people here seem to have a problem with the terms that are used here - assault, battery and false imprisonment. They're used in a legal term, not the way many of us would think, particularly in Tort (Civil) law.

Assault is to believe that someone is to do you harm. Look at it from a four year old's perspective. You came home with a letter, your mammy signed it and said "you're not getting the injection." Then you end up sitting in a chair with someone holding a needle. If the child was crying, many would probably assume that it was with fright. I cried at my injections when I was five, as did most kids.

Battery is if harm is done to you. In this case, the child was given an injection, and was harmed as the syringe pierced her skin. It's seen as harm in law.

As for the false imprisonment, you don't have to be tied down. False imprisonment simply means you do not believe that you can leave where you are. If you're a child, sitting in a chair waiting for an injection, you're going to think that you can't leave. I know when my brother had his injections done, he had to be held down. If my mother hadn't consented, she could have sued on his behalf for false imprisonment.

The legal terminology is different to what we would think the actual word means. Assault can be a threatening gesture (But, interestingly, not speech.)

Pottler

Madam_X wrote: »

So you aren't in favour of them not because of actual evidence, just because you have a "feeling" they're dodgy and the government has an agenda?
Obviously up to you, but I'd have thought the logical thing to do would be to take advice from science and health professionals rather than go with a mere hunch you personally have, based on... not really anything.

I can understand people's concerns about the H1N1 vaccine (based on non tinfoil hat comments to this thread) but vaccines in general...?

err, my kids are vaccinated, just not the pandemerix one..:)

Busybee4

Pottler wrote: »

Madam_X wrote: »

So you aren't in favour of them not because of actual evidence, just because you have a "feeling" they're dodgy and the government has an agenda?
Obviously up to you, but I'd have thought the logical thing to do would be to take advice from science and health professionals rather than go with a mere hunch you personally have, based on... not really anything.

I can understand people's concerns about the H1N1 vaccine (based on non tinfoil hat comments to this thread) but vaccines in general...?

err, my kids are vaccinated, just not the pandemerix one..:)

I have 4 children all vaccinated as advised by doctors, I rarely post on this site but enjoy reading threads.
On H1N1 I regret giving it to my children. I have met families with children affected by narcolepsy, I thought my daughter also had this. To date since that injection my daughter now aged 6 has become a different child, she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of epilepsy I do not know what else is ahead for her. I would not settle for 4 K for what I do think accidentally happened to that girl.
No one should judge unless they have walked that path, my heart is broken.

Dave!

Busybee4 wrote: »

I have 4 children all vaccinated as advised by doctors, I rarely post on this site but enjoy reading threads.
On H1N1 I regret giving it to my children. I have met families with children affected by narcolepsy, I thought my daughter also had this. To date since that injection my daughter now aged 6 has become a different child, she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of epilepsy I do not know what else is ahead for her. I would not settle for 4 K for what I do think accidentally happened to that girl.
No one should judge unless they have walked that path, my heart is broken.

Sorry to hear about your daughter. There's a well-known logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means "after this, therefore because of this". It's a fallacy because the fact that one thing follows another does not necessarily mean that the first thing caused the second. That's the kind of specious reasoning that drives the anti-MMR vaccine movement in the USA and elsewhere. Just as there is no evidence that MMR causes autism, there is no evidence that the H1N1 vaccine causes epilepsy; your daughter would most likely have developed epilepsy regardless of whether she got the vaccine or not. It just so happens that there was a temporal correlation between the two. She might have switched to a different shampoo the same week, and you'd have been on as solid logical ground to suggest that the new shampoo caused the epilepsy.

edit

Given that you "thought" your child also had narcolepsy following the H1N1 jab (I gather she does not), maybe you should exercise caution before seeking out correlations between the H1N1 vaccine and any medical ailment that should follow.

AudreyHepburn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A great move by her parents who fought this case of unnecessary torture and humiliation against their daughter. It should be a lesson to us all that we should have the right to choose should we or our kids want to receive jabs or not.

"A six year old child given a flu vaccine at school without her parents’ consent has been awarded €4,000 damages.

In the Circuit Civil Court, Judge Matthew Deery was told Niamh Fleming had been taken from her classroom in a Dublin city centre school, St Laurence O’Toole National, and inoculated against the H1N1virus.

Mr Crean said the defendants had offered a figure of €4,000 in settlement to the claim for assault, battery, false imprisonment and trespass to Niamh’s person and he was recommending acceptance of it".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/schoolgirl-gets-4000-for-flu-jab-given-without-parents-consent-3254826.html[/QUOTE]

Hold on....was she given a vaccination or kidnapped and physically assaulted?

The school should not have done it out permission yes.....but to describe it as assault and battery and false imprisonment is going way too far imo.

walrusgumble

CTYIgirl wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to have a problem with the terms that are used here - assault, battery and false imprisonment. They're used in a legal term, not the way many of us would think, particularly in Tort (Civil) law.

Assault is to believe that someone is to do you harm. Look at it from a four year old's perspective. You came home with a letter, your mammy signed it and said "you're not getting the injection." Then you end up sitting in a chair with someone holding a needle. If the child was crying, many would probably assume that it was with fright. I cried at my injections when I was five, as did most kids.

Battery is if harm is done to you. In this case, the child was given an injection, and was harmed as the syringe pierced her skin. It's seen as harm in law.

As for the false imprisonment, you don't have to be tied down. False imprisonment simply means you do not believe that you can leave where you are. If you're a child, sitting in a chair waiting for an injection, you're going to think that you can't leave. I know when my brother had his injections done, he had to be held down. If my mother hadn't consented, she could have sued on his behalf for false imprisonment.

The legal terminology is different to what we would think the actual word means. Assault can be a threatening gesture (But, interestingly, not speech.)

Assault (tort) can include speech , if tort accepts criminal law case of R v Ireland 1998, and speech is done in a threatening manner which leads a person to believe that they will be subject to force (in tort , battery) Is "your getting the injection" , not speech?

Just to be clear, as I have responded a few time , when I said assault , I was referring to criminal assault as per Section 2 NFOAP Act (of course that case above had nothing to do with criminal law)

Run_to_da_hills

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The school should not have done it out permission yes.....but to describe it as assault and battery and false imprisonment is going way too far imo.

AFAIK those would be the correct legal terms to be used in a courtroom situation for a litigation like that.

byhookorbycrook

jluv wrote: »

I'm quite surprised that a school took a chance like this....

Little enough to do with the school. They landed into us, took groups of kids to another room to inject etc. So, the school was only being used as a venue.Teachers don't presume to check paperwork, the HSE workers are totally in charge.

AudreyHepburn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

AFAIK those would be the correct legal terms to be used in a courtroom situation for a litigation like that.

Maybe so....but imo its just too extreme for what happened.

Madam_X

Busybee4 wrote: »

I have 4 children all vaccinated as advised by doctors, I rarely post on this site but enjoy reading threads.
On H1N1 I regret giving it to my children. I have met families with children affected by narcolepsy, I thought my daughter also had this. To date since that injection my daughter now aged 6 has become a different child, she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of epilepsy I do not know what else is ahead for her. I would not settle for 4 K for what I do think accidentally happened to that girl.
No one should judge unless they have walked that path, my heart is broken.

That's horrible, I'm so sorry. I hope it wasn't the vaccine - and it may not have been, so you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Easy for me to say I know, but you shouldn't.

Madam_X

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maybe so....but imo its just too extreme for what happened.

Post #110 explains how it's correct from a legal point of view. Assault can be verbal too, legally speaking.

Run_to_da_hills

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maybe so....but imo its just too extreme for what happened.

What?

That young child got detained and jabbed with an unknown poison against her will.

AudreyHepburn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What?

That young child got detained and jabbed with an unknown poison against her will.

Ah relax....yes permission should been sought but to say she was imprisoned, poisoned, humiliated, tortured etc is going overboard imo.

AudreyHepburn

Madam_X wrote: »

Post #110 explains how it's correct from a legal point of view. Assault can be verbal too, legally speaking.

So something like 'you're getting an injection now' is verbal assault?

walrusgumble

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So something like 'you're getting an injection now' is verbal assault?

If a junkie came up to you can said that, what would you think?

No, in the context of how the poster at post 110 said it, no, probably not as it was the mother.


You were referring to how these terms might be extreme

False impression can be detention in a fixed place against your will or you are led to believe that you have a lawful requirement to be at a certain place (or in the parents case, their consent)
even if you are not aware of it. It does not require violence. A kid wrongly accused of stealing is asked politely to go to the security room, might be false imprisonment, even for two minutes.

battery (or in criminal law , assault) is simply unlawful or uninvited application of force on other, whether it is the lightest touch to the thump in the face. It is an infringement to bodily integrity.

An assault (or in criminal law threat (assault as per section 2 NFOAP Act or various threat offences) that too is an infringement to the bodily intergrity (including the mind)

all of these obejectionable conduct, whether criminal or in tort can be carried out recklessly. One can easily commit them

Madam_X

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So something like 'you're getting an injection now' is verbal assault?

Didn't say or imply that - they're legal terms, not opinions.

Run_to_da_hills

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah relax....yes permission should been sought but to say she was imprisoned, poisoned, humiliated, tortured etc is going overboard imo.

What if the child was allergic to these chemicals and took a turn for the worst, I guess it could have been manslaughter charges.

walrusgumble

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What if the child was allergic to these chemicals and took a turn for the worst, I guess it could have been manslaughter charges.

look the poster does not understand the issues here, no point going further

AudreyHepburn

walrusgumble wrote: »

look the poster does not understand the issues here, no point going further

I understand the issues perfectly thanks, please don't speak of me like I'm a fool. It only makes you look petty.

I never said what was done was right, just that to me suggesting the child was assaulted, battered, tortured, humiliated, poisoned etc is too much.

Busybee4

Dave! wrote: »

Busybee4 wrote: »

I have 4 children all vaccinated as advised by doctors, I rarely post on this site but enjoy reading threads.
On H1N1 I regret giving it to my children. I have met families with children affected by narcolepsy, I thought my daughter also had this. To date since that injection my daughter now aged 6 has become a different child, she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of epilepsy I do not know what else is ahead for her. I would not settle for 4 K for what I do think accidentally happened to that girl.
No one should judge unless they have walked that path, my heart is broken.

Sorry to hear about your daughter. There's a well-known logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means "after this, therefore because of this". It's a fallacy because the fact that one thing follows another does not necessarily mean that the first thing caused the second. That's the kind of specious reasoning that drives the anti-MMR vaccine movement in the USA and elsewhere. Just as there is no evidence that MMR causes autism, there is no evidence that the H1N1 vaccine causes epilepsy; your daughter would most likely have developed epilepsy regardless of whether she got the vaccine or not. It just so happens that there was a temporal correlation between the two. She might have switched to a different shampoo the same week, and you'd have been on as solid logical ground to suggest that the new shampoo caused the epilepsy.

edit

Given that you "thought" your child also had narcolepsy following the H1N1 jab (I gather she does not), maybe you should exercise caution before seeking out correlations between the H1N1 vaccine and any medical ailment that should follow.

She has not been tested yet as docs feel it is too rare to have epilepsy and narcolepsy together. I am not an expert on vaccines and whatever side effects that follow but in my opinion this is what happened to my daughter or maybe as u suggest it is just a coincidence she developed seizures the same say as the vaccine. I don't care anymore I just want my daughter back:(

Madam_X

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It doesn't matter what your opinion is - they're legal terms, not literal.

AudreyHepburn

Madam_X wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It doesn't matter what your opinion is - they're legal terms, not literate.

Obtuse? No not at all.

Am I not allowed voice an opinion? I know they're just legal terms and was merely sharing my view on them.

Dave!

Busybee4 wrote: »

My daughter is not being tested for narcolepsy at present as the doctors feel it is too rare to have epilepsy and narcolepsy together. Do u think your new shampoo idea applies to narcolepsy post N1H1?

No, there are reports of narcolepsy in a small number of people following the jab, though it's not clear what the cause of it is as far as I know. Adolescents in Finland and Sweden had an increase in incidences of narcolepsy, but a similar increase wasn't observed in some other countries which received the same vaccine. There are legitimate concerns there though, so I wouldn't be particularly critical of parents waiting until more research is done to ascertain if there is any risk.

My response was regarding your claim about epilepsy. There is no evidence of the H1N1 vaccine causing epilepsy, so just because seizures followed your daughter receiving a vaccine does not mean that was the cause of it. If she hadn't received the shot, would you have looked a bit further back for a cause? Perhaps some kind of medication she was given? The MMR vaccine?

Again, sorry to hear about your troubles, but the anti-vaccine movement in the USA is full of grief-stricken parents who are desperately grasping at anything to blame for their child developing autism, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. You'll drive yourself demented if you follow that line.

Busybee4

Dave! wrote: »

Busybee4 wrote: »

My daughter is not being tested for narcolepsy at present as the doctors feel it is too rare to have epilepsy and narcolepsy together. Do u think your new shampoo idea applies to narcolepsy post N1H1?

No, there are reports of narcolepsy in a small number of people following the jab, though it's not clear what the cause of it is as far as I know. Adolescents in Finland and Sweden had an increase in incidences of narcolepsy, but a similar increase wasn't observed in some other countries which received the same vaccine. There are legitimate concerns there though, so I wouldn't be particularly critical of parents waiting until more research is done to ascertain if there is any risk.

My response was regarding your claim about epilepsy. There is no evidence of the H1N1 vaccine causing epilepsy, so just because seizures followed your daughter receiving a vaccine does not mean that was the cause of it. If she hadn't received the shot, would you have looked a bit further back for a cause? Perhaps some kind of medication she was given? The MMR vaccine?

Again, sorry to hear about your troubles, but the anti-vaccine movement in the USA is full of grief-stricken parents who are desperately grasping at anything to blame for their child developing autism, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. You'll drive yourself demented if you follow that line.

I won't be following any line it is my opinion this is what happened to my daughter. I was of the same opinion regarding mmr as you are. Only unfortunately if something like this happens to ur own child can u understand. I don't care how or why this happened to my daughter as I now spend my time caring for her and worrying so I am probably already demented!! ))

irishconvert

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Shouldn't have given her the jab without permission, regardless of how you feel about them.

Majority of vaccination procedures are completely safe, but side affects are an issue that cannot be ignored. In the case of H1N1, if you weren't in one of the risk groups I think it'd be ok to leave it.

People who oppose well established vaccines (eg MMR) well, good luck to them..

Merck, the company who produce the MMR vaccine is alleged to have falsified testing results to make the vaccine appear effective than it really is:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/merck-scientists-accuse-company-of-mumps-vaccine-fraud-that-endangers-public-health-protocol-007/

Anyone who pumps vaccines or any kind of drugs into them without reading about the drug and understanding the side effects is stupid. And anybody who trusts big drug companies who are there to make as much profits as possible are stupid also.

The parents of this girl were 100% right to take the case. The school and state has no right to administer any kind of drug without the parents' permission.

Busybee4

irishconvert wrote: »

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Shouldn't have given her the jab without permission, regardless of how you feel about them.

Majority of vaccination procedures are completely safe, but side affects are an issue that cannot be ignored. In the case of H1N1, if you weren't in one of the risk groups I think it'd be ok to leave it.

People who oppose well established vaccines (eg MMR) well, good luck to them..

Merck, the company who produce the MMR vaccine is alleged to have falsified testing results to make the vaccine appear effective than it really is:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/merck-scientists-accuse-company-of-mumps-vaccine-fraud-that-endangers-public-health-protocol-007/

Anyone who pumps vaccines or any kind of drugs into them without reading about the drug and understanding the side effects is stupid. And anybody who trusts big drug companies who are there to make as much profits as possible are stupid also.

The parents of this girl were 100% right to take the case. The school and state has no right to administer any kind of drug without the parents' permission.

Agree.

walrusgumble

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I understand the issues perfectly thanks, please don't speak of me like I'm a fool. It only makes you look petty.

I never said what was done was right, just that to me suggesting the child was assaulted, battered, tortured, humiliated, poisoned etc is too much.

No, you don't understand the issue perfectly. You made a number of grossly inaccurate comments, so don't be getting shirty.

You pointed out (and continue to do so in the above post, thus , being completely oblivious to the reasons for my comment to another poster) that using terms like battery, assault, and false imprisonment were extreme use of words. This indicates that you were not aware of what those terms mean and how easy it is to comment those wrongs.


Respectively, what I said to the other poster, still stands, and your post (second paragraph), to which I am now responding to, confirms it , along with your other posts.

I never said that you were a fool (I would not need to , even if I had implied same, you did that all on your own). But you are ill informed. No big deal, at first. But when other posters have pointed out to you, and you still presist...

Anyway good day

Run_to_da_hills

"The Armageddon virus: Why experts fear a disease that leaps from animals to humans could devastate mankind in the next five years".

Even the name that they christened this so called virus it is pathetic.

The only ones that will benefit from all this scaremongering will be corrupt Big Pharma and their government back handers as they offload more of their toxic chemicals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217774/The-Armageddon-virus-Why-experts-fear-disease-leaps-animals-humans-devastate-mankind-years.html

opinion guy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"The Armageddon virus: Why experts fear a disease that leaps from animals to humans could devastate mankind in the next five years".

Even the name that they christened this so called virus it is pathetic.

The only ones that will benefit from all this scaremongering will be corrupt Big Pharma and their government back handers as they offload more of their toxic chemicals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217774/The-Armageddon-virus-Why-experts-fear-disease-leaps-animals-humans-devastate-mankind-years.html

The ZOMBOCALYSPE shall soon be upon us!! Run to the hills people!!!!!


:rolleyes:

Feathers

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I can guarantee that this was an administrative error, and that the child was immunised with the rest of her class, where permission should have been sought but wasn't for whatever reason - probably carelessness. I doubt the child was forced kicking and screaming and strapped to a chair to have the injection administered. It was a simple mistake.

No harm was actually done.

Which is precisely why children aren't allowed to give consent for medical treatment, parents do on their behalf. It's not up to a six year old to make an informed decision on whether or not to have a vaccine.

Most sensible schools wouldn't trust the six year olds to bring home the letter telling parents about it, never mind giving consent.

Dave!

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"The Armageddon virus: Why experts fear a disease that leaps from animals to humans could devastate mankind in the next five years".

Even the name that they christened this so called virus it is pathetic.

The only ones that will benefit from all this scaremongering will be corrupt Big Pharma and their government back handers as they offload more of their toxic chemicals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217774/The-Armageddon-virus-Why-experts-fear-disease-leaps-animals-humans-devastate-mankind-years.html

You mean the name that the Daily Mail Christened it?

You truly are an imbecile.

user banned