An urgent Call To Action. Please call upon your political representatives to table these documents in Parliament before the right of the community to know what is going on in their government departments is DENIED.

"DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?"

I am an Australian medical analyst and writer who released a story about a 12 year old girl who was forced to undergo chemotherapy on the advice of a doctor who based his treatment on a study that some other doctors claimed could not have formed an adequate basis for his prognosis or his forced treatment.

The girl's parents were relentlessly pursued through the courts by the (Australian) Department of Community Services (DoCS) which is a child welfare government department. This department used any and every means to cause this child to become a ward of the Court in order for this treatment to be forcibly administered by the doctor and hospital against the wishes of the child and her parents and in the apparent absence of properly presented medical evidence.

The family's and child's specific identifying details were de-identified in accordance with Court requirements, and the story was widely circulated in the public interest (with permission).

Living Now Magazine published part one of the story and planned to print part two in the December issue. Two days after publication they were pressured by DoCS threatening legal action if the magazine did not agree to suppress the matter by pulling the story and all future references to it. For further details, Scroll down to read the author's correspondence to the Crown solicitor's office which acts for the department of community services (DoCS). It appears DoCS has taken over the lawful role of the Court by creating, interpreting, administering and enforcing their own "laws".

Attached are the original story, the update and the letter from the author to the Crown Solicitor's Office (the legal representative of DoCS).

Many in the community, including the family are disturbed by these developments which appear to be DoCS attempts to protect itself from public accountability and legal liability for its actions.

This author is usually focused on writing and does not normally call for community action, however it appears necessary if this family's rights are to be upheld along with and the right to freedom of speech and the right of the community to know what is going on in the area of health and in our government departments.

The minister for DoCS, Carmel Tebbutt, has not replied to any correspondence regarding this matter.

Feedback is welcome to
*Author: evehillary@smartchat.net.au
*Family: stillgrinnin@kooee.com.au
*Official Contacts: Ask Politicians to make enquiries and demand they table these documents in Parliament
*Julia Gillard Shadow Health MP Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au
*Jacinta Collins Shadow Sen. Children and Youth - senator.jacinta.collins@aph.gov.au
*Senator Bob Brown AG. Senator.Brown@aph.gov.au
*Lee Rhiannon MLC NSW Greens: Lee.Rhiannon@parliament.nsw.gov
*John Hunter Hospital Professor Graham Vimpani
*Letters to DoCS office contact: DoCS Taree, 102-112 Victoria St. Taree, NSW 2430
*Ombudsman: mail@csc.nsw.gov.au

...............................................................................

__________________________________________________________________

The letter below was written on November 17, 2003 and served on the Crown Solicitors office by registered mail no: RD 49422008 posted 17/11/03

Attention:
Miss Gretchen Shirm
Solicitor for the Department of Community Services- DoCS

RE: Giving Notice regarding your demand to suppress my Article
entitled DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?

Dear Miss Shirm,

On 14th November 2003, I received a faxed copy of your letter to Ms. Elizabeth Stephens, Editor of Living Now magazine referring to my article, "DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?" Ms. Stephens published part one in her recent November issue with part two set to run in the December issue which is now I understand being typeset. I am the author of that article. In accordance with court orders I have de-identified personal and family names and other details and used the pseudonym "Lisa" for the child. (DoCS have used another pseudonym "Heather" for the child.)

I understand you are acting for the interests of the Department of Community Services.

In your letter you allege my article reveals the child's identity and you claim it contains "various inaccuracies". Pursuant to these allegations you threaten the editor with court action if she does not give you a written assurance to suppress part two of this story in print and remove it from the magazine's website. I understand this would incur considerable cost to the magazine.

My article is an exposé of the Department of Community Services (DoCS) which took drastic action to force an 11-year-old girl, "Lisa", to undergo chemotherapy against her will and against the wishes of her parents. This was carried out on the medical advice of Doctor Alvaro who based his prognosis and chemotherapy treatment on a UK study he insisted supported his claims. The doctor told the parents and later told the Supreme Court of NSW that the child had an 85% probability of a "cure" with his recommended chemotherapy when the study he based this on showed this figure to represent only a five year survival rate. The doctor claimed the child had no chance of survival without his chemotherapy, but according to other expert opinions, the UK study had no control group to support this claim. The family asked doctor Alvaro to supply them with supporting medical evidence, which he refused. Your client, DoCS continued to pursue the parents through the Court until their daughter was made a ward of the Court and the chemo was forcibly administered. The family continued to request proof of the medical evidence to support this forced treatment. Their family doctor and two other doctors subsequently reviewed the UK study and disagreed with the forced treatment, finding no adequate basis for it in the study. One doctor asked the court to seek independent medical opinions. Despite being made aware of these reasonable doubts, your client, DoCS, continued to pursue the parents through the court in a concerted action to deprive them of their parental rights. As you are aware, the child and her family had a number of their rights reinstated by His Honour, Judge Campbell at their most recent court appearance.

I wrote the article using the available information at the time. I checked my sources for accuracy and found the information correct to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing. I was in full awareness of the court orders stating; "no publication that would identify or tend to identify the child the subject of these proceedings or her family occur except for the purpose of the proper conduct of the proceedings." Respectful of the court orders and the sensibilities of the child and her family, I de-identified the personal family's details in accordance with the US de-identification standard and the privacy standards set down by the Privacy Act and the APC Privacy standards. The details of the case were obtained by fair and honest means from the relevant legal and medical documents and interviews and transcripts. Other information sources included the Supreme Court's own website listing this case with considerable medical and legal detail including the actual names of most doctors involved and treatment locations. This information is in the public domain for the purpose of serving the public interest as are other court judgements available for the rightful purpose of public scrutiny.

The story of how an Australian government department did all things necessary to force a now 12-year-old girl to undergo a series of potentially fatal chemotherapy treatments, purportedly without adequate medical evidence, would appear to be a matter of significant public interest. Particularly since the forced treatment was contrary to other medical opinions and was administered in spite of the child's and the parents' opposition. The trauma caused to this family and others by the way in which "health care" has been forcibly applied without informed consent, through a government department, is a matter capable of affecting people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about what is going on, or what may happen to them and others. It is in fact the duty of the media to inform the public of these matters of public interest, as the Privacy Act itself acknowledges. Indeed this story was reviewed by a solicitor prior to its release to ensure it complied with all necessary orders and requirements. In addition, the document; "DoCS-Stealing our children For Medicine" was tendered to the Supreme Court and to your client, DoCS, and to all other relevant parties as an attachment to an affidavit dated 1/9/03. DoCS has had ample time to dispute its veracity, accuracy or relevance. It has been in the public domain for several months. It is not clear why your client demands this story be suppressed by this particular publication. I have received no notice from DoCS with respect to the issues they raise, when they have had the means to contact me since September 1, 2003 by way of my email address clearly printed on my article.

It appears self evident that no reader would be able to know the name of the girl or her family unless the family chose to disclose this. Because your client purports to act in the child's interests, I require evidence that your demand for the suppression of this story would serve the child's interest, the family's or the community's interests. I note that no relevant family members have complained about the issues you raise purportedly on their behalf. They have checked my article for accuracy and found it correct to the best of their knowledge. Far from protecting the family's interests or the public interest, your actions would appear to ensure the department of community services is protected from legitimate and rightful public scrutiny.

Your demand to stop the press within a few days, without showing just cause, and without giving the magazine sufficient time for recourse, and without service, cannot be a lawfully binding restraint. To give in to DoCS demands would be certain to incur heavy expenses for the magazine. This would be liable to cause wrongful damage to my integrity and reputation as a writer who relies on publications to publish my works. This I suspect is intended by your client, DoCS.

I reserve the right to continue my occupation unimpeded, to report matters that are in the public interest without suffering intimidation, without those around me suffering intimidation or incurring expenses or damages arising from unfounded allegations.

Pursuant to the aforesaid facts, you are hereby required to produce proof of alleged inaccuracies and give just cause why this article should be excluded from the public interest, within 14 days. Failure to do this shall be taken that no inaccuracies or other impediments exist and the matter is at an end.

Should your client pursue further unfounded actions preventing me from pursuing lawful activities, I will seek orders to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding in a frivolous and vexatious manner.

Sincerely,

Eve Hillary (Signed)
PO Box 745
St. Ives, NSW 2075
evehillary@smartchat.net.au