TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Tuesday 18 June, 2013

Children’s minister plays down referendum ‘forced vaccination’ fears

Frances Fitzgerald says a constitutional reference to children’s rights would not result in forced vaccinations or adoptions.

Image: Niall Carson/PA Archive

CHILDREN’S MINISTER Frances Fitzgerald has said fears that the forthcoming referendum on children’s rights could lead to forced vaccinations or adoptions are unfounded and the result of people carrying arguments “to extremes”.

Fitzgerald said that while she anticipated some opposition to the referendum – which the government hopes to hold later this year – from people who were ‘purists’ about what should be included in the constitution, she hoped the move would win broad public support.

“There is no law in our state that says parents should have to vaccinate,” Fitzgerald said on RTÉ’s Today with Pat Kenny. “People take different approaches as we know.

“Any court is not going to come in, at a constitutional level, and say, ‘This is obligatory for all children’.”

Fitzgerald also sought to dampen fears that an explicit constitutional guarantee of children’s rights could see the State forcibly taking children from parents and into its own care.

We get 30,000 cases a year of children were people have [reported] concerns; we get 1,500 confirmed cases of abuse.

The State already, through legislation, has the power to intervene and do their best.

The amendment could in fact offer a counterbalance to this, she said, by ensuring that authorities only intervened “proportionately” and with due regard to the rights of families and parents.

‘Anticipate the arguments’

The minister added, however, that she could “anticipate the discussion and the arguments, and the concerns that people might have” about including a constitutional guarantee of children’s rights.

“You’re never going to get the wording 100 per cent correct,” she said. ”I’m more interested in having a referendum along the lines of the recent one [on the Fiscal Compact treaty], where we got the information out to the public.”

Fitzgerald said the referendum hoped to “equalise” the position for children to avoid circumstances where a child living with a foster family could not be put up for adoption simply because their biological parents were married.

“It might sound strange to some people, but there are 30 per cent of children in care whose parents are married,” Fitzgerald said, saying at present children could seek court permission to be adopted by foster parents once they had reached the age of 17-and-a-half.

“So we’re saying to those parents now, who genuinely want the best for their children, they can now voluntarily place those children for adoption.”

The wording of the referendum is due to be agreed before the Dáil reconvenes in eight days’ time, meaning it is likely to be approved by ministers at a cabinet meeting either tomorrow or next week.

Read: Ombudsman: Children’s rights referendum won’t bring “radical change”

Read next:

Comments (26 Comments)

  • Oh please. This is scaremongering of the highest order. There is no way ‘loving families’ are going to be ‘ripped apart’ by this referendum. You won’t go to collect your kids from school only to find they’ve been vaccinated against your will and adopted by another family. This is to protect children in the worst situations. Some children in horrible abusive families cannot legally be adopted by foster parents! Let’s just wait til the wording comes out before we all start believing the conspiracy theorists…

    Reply
  • Forced vaccinations?

    I see the Cóir/GOP/Michelle Bachmann/Youth Defence/extreme right wing of this debate has awoken.

    Reply
  • Just a thought, but maybe it’d be more sensible to wait for a draft of the amendment and accompanying legislation to be realised BEFORE weighing in on your opinions, as, right now, you’re commenting on something you haven’t seen, so there’s very little ground to base speculation on.

    Reply
    • Not really John, this is already happening in the UK, CPS are snatching children away from loving families for no good reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-p3VphJvOg&feature=related

      Reply
    • Well said. The hysterical comments on here are giving me brain itch.

      Reply
    • @ Caroline – the referendum will be in Ireland and the amendment will be to the Irish Constitution. We’re not part of the UK, and what is policy there is not necessarily what will become policy here. As for your claim about what the UK authorities are doing, it’s exactly that; a claim. If you want to state that this is a fact, you’ll need to back the claim up with objective evidence. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that you haven’t provided proof.

      Reply
    • The issues raised by the current minister will certainly cause many social workers to scratch their heads. The so called child protection industry tries its best to work with parents/agencies at ensuring best child outcomes and we are no closer to the UK & USA system.

      Any children’s referendum should be aimed at ensuring the child has rights and is heard/represented. The traditional family is not under threat but like all things complex, a child’s needs may be at risk within that unit (Roscommon case) and the state does need to be able to ensure the children’s rights in some extreme cases.

      Ethically social workers will at best try to work with parents in a defined time frame to address issues and concerns. Unfortunately the structures are poor in terms of interagency work between services for children and adults.

      Reply
  • Kim 10/09/12 #

    Forced vaccinations or adoptions do people really believe that that is what the referendum would be all about.
    While I could understand people’s concerns being a mother myself I just could not see forced anything being accepted in this day and age, but maybe I’m wrong

    Reply
    • Kim.
      I doubt the referendum will be about that too, but they will possibly sneak it in. If they do it will present a dilemma for some. The main body of the referendum will be indisputable and is apparently badly needed, but they may disagree with the right to bodily integrity being withdrawn from children.
      What if we were forced to use, for example, the Swine flu vaccine? And yes – forced medication happens to thousands of people in relation to mental health, so it’s just expanding the practice. Any medication has side effects and it should be left to the individual (in the case of kids the parents) to decide what is needed.

      Reply
    • I’m afraid you are wrong Kim! This about the same view that Hitler held about children. Basically this is driven by the UN, the aim is to have all children as wards of the State, therefore it will be the State that decides what vaccines children will be mandated to take, parents will have no say in it. Now,think about the swine flu ‘pandemic’ the UN WHO called the pandemic so once children are wards of the State, they will get vaccinated and as we know the swine flu vaccines was untested and now several unfortunate people have vaccine induced narcolepsy.
      This referendum is about the preservation of the family or the total destruction of the family. And lets be honest when did the government tell the truth about referenda? Remember Lisbon ‘Vote yes for jobs’, well that was a lie wasn’t it?

      Reply
    • Kim 10/09/12 #

      OMG Caroline I’m in shock. Have i been a very naive parent?
      I will be completely honest in saying that I would only know a little about the children’s referendum but that has just scared the living bejayus out of me.
      Im certainly going to look into it more now.
      I’m now one very concerned mammy.

      Reply
  • AlMar 10/09/12 #

    Hang on. Frances Fitzgerald says: “The State already, through legislation, has the power to intervene”.

    So, if the State already has the power to intervene (and they don’t do a great job at it), what extra powers does the State want???

    Reply
  • So, at long last we know what the children’s referendum is about, not safeguarding children or giving them more rights. God no, this might mean the state would have to provide more sna’s in school, qualified teachers and a legal right for children to access medical and educational resources when they require such assistance.
    How much will the govt save by not having to pay for Forster care? Instead the children will be put up for adoption.
    Perhaps if they had a policy of supporting families, it would be money better spent in the long run.
    If the family is that dysfunctional that abuse occurs, leave it to the guards and the courts to deal with it.
    The state has proven time and time again that it is ineffectual, if not downright negligent in dealing with children.
    And no, I don’t think that anyone is under the illusion anymore that having a wedding ring on your finger automatically makes you a good parent and that we are all surprised that that children from married parents should end up in care.
    Give children the legal right to be able to access the help they need, whether that is medical, educational, or having a say in the legal process when it comes to decisions that affect them, such as guardianship or visitation rights when their parents relationships break down.
    That is the issues that a children’s referendum should be concerned about!

    Reply
  • Only this government could manufacture a reason to oppose a children’s rights agreement.
    I look forward to seeing the wording, but if it denies children & the family the right to bodily integrity, I will be opposing it. These thing should be dealt with in legislation, imo.

    Reply
    • What maladjusted thinking !

      Reply
    • uh-huh.
      So are you arguing that the guardians of children should be constitutionally denied the right to determine whether kids should be injected with medication?
      [ .... or do you mean I should not bother waiting for the wording? :P ]

      Reply
    • The people who would deny their children vaccination will be the first demanding no expense spared medical treatment when it all goes wrong

      Reply
    • @Justin
      That may be so (although I think it unlikely)
      Personally I think it’s far worse with the opposite type of cases – where they have been forced by the state to inject their kids and it causes damage of some kind….
      Something like the TamiFlu thing, where it appears that some kids now have narcolepsy, with the government having signed an indemnity for the drug company. The state should now be taking the burden there.
      At least with the Swine Flu there was only propaganda pressure, not legal pressure.
      Furthermore – if laws are needed why not put it into the legislation. Putting something like that into the constitution is crazy…… I suspect there would be a good basis for challenging it on human rights grounds – meaning the whole thing would be scrapped.

      Reply
    • @Maladjusted: some vaccinations should be mandatory. Just as in some cases people have to be compelled to undergo treatment (and coming from the city that had on of the last noted smallpox outbreaks before the virus has been eradicated, I do know what I’m talking about)

      Reply
  • This Country is getting VERY Americanized! , This referendum wants to Rip families apart. Granted Childrens needs, need to be number one, but no way in HELL is anybody going to tell me i HAVE to vaccinate any of my children.
    Also What about the Fathers whose names are not registered on the birth certs and want access to see their children, should that not be addressed first, this agenda they have under the guise of protecting childrens rights.
    This once proud, family orientated country is gone, We are just puppets for America and Europe

    Reply
    • Speaking of America.

      THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES by Nancy Schaefer:
      http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/files/2010/03/Nancy-Schaefer-CPS-report.pdf

      The Author was murdered shortly afterwards. Personally, I think we need to be cautious of an industry that gets more funding for removing more children from their families. And we should no forget the incredible deviousness of paedophile clergy who intentionally joined the priesthood because it gave an assumed trust access to defenseless children. Maybe I am paranoid

      Reply
    • also child protection services in the uk is very scary indeed.the family courts often conspire to steal children from their parents for no reason.there are mothers from the uk who are currently on the run here in ireland.scary stuff.check out brian gerrish je has done a lot of research about this

      Reply
  • Carol Hughes spot on. The aim of the childrens referendum is to make our Constitution subervient to the UN Convention. The STATE will decide not the parent, not children the STATE will decide what’s in their best interest of children. The referendum asks us to give the STATE the right to order the adoption of any child for any reason at any time without the consent of the parents. The HSE has failed time and time again. In 2011 the HSE claimed 541 “confirmed” cases of sexual abuse against children yet the DPP prosecuted only 20 cases that year. What happened with Danny Talbot, Tracey Fay and Daniel Mc Anaspie in HSE care? The Constitution obliges the State to intervene when the parents fail in their duty. But here is the problem the “languishing” children, problem children are not the ones adopted – few people want older children. They want newborns and the UK has mandatory State adoption since 1997. John Hemming MP estimated that 1,000 out of 1,700 adoptions a year in the UK are wrongful. So, if you don’t get your newborn vaccinated the STATE will have the power to intervene. So, John Conniffe you don’t think it will happen here. Just look at the ingredients they put in the “safe” vaccines. Vera Duffy trusted the HSE and look what happened to her son?

    Reply

Add New Comment