A child of twelve was charged with ‘threatening behaviour’ at his school in Bowmanville, East of Toronto last week. The arrest happened when the boy (who cannot be named for legal reasons) threw a tantrum refusing the Hepatitis B vaccine.  Read more…

GILLICK LAW…the court held that ‘parental rights’ did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.

GILLICK LAW…cited on LawTeacher.net. When referring to the phrase Gillick competence, commentators are normally discussing the ability of a minor to make his or her own choices and have such choices upheld by the law. Most commonly, discussion relates to medical treatment and stems from the case of Gillick v W Norfolk and Wisbech AHA. Essentially, it is necessary to examine how the courts have handled the issues relating to children as decision makers, balancing such choices to the views of the parents or guardians and ultimately whether such views can overrule those of the child.

Go to vaccine information, John Hopkins School of Heath

Pink: Religious Exemptions  Green: Philosophical or personal beliefs

Michigan law on vaccine exemptions, for example:

According to the National Vaccine Information Center, the relevant law is MCL § 333.9215 (2007):

§ 333.9215. Exemption of child; immunization detrimental to health or not appropriate, physician certificate; religious convictions or other objections, parent’s written statement.

Sec. 9215.

(1) A child is exempt from the requirements of this part as to a specific immunization for any period of time as to which a physician certifies that a specific immunization is or may be detrimental to the child’s health or is not appropriate.

(2) A child is exempt from this part if a parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis of the child presents a written statement to the administrator of the child’s school or operator of the group program to the effect that the requirements of this part cannot be met because of religious convictions or other objection to immunization.