Either the world has gone mad or the judges would have to start basing their decisions on proven and demonstrable data. I'm talking about a case that we just learned, happened in Australia, where a judge has forbidden a mother to breastfeed her baby because she has a tattoo and considers that it could put an "unacceptable risk" to the baby.
The woman, it seems, got a tattoo four weeks ago, at a time when she was breastfeeding her baby, who is now eleven months old. He did it because he knew it was safe for her and her son, but Judge Matthew Myers has considered it dangerous for the child and has chosen to ban breastfeeding.
Given this situation, given the risk that the judge would rule against the woman, he decided to have tests that ruled out any related problems. Tests such as hepatitis and HIV detection. All tests were negative, they showed that the woman is still as healthy as ever but the judge, in a sudden attack of "lucidity", has decided that these clinical tests are inconclusive.
The protests have not been long in coming
The Australian Breastfeeding Association has not taken long to declare that the judge's ruling can create a very dangerous precedent, as it can give voice, vote and in some ways to justice to enter to value, judge, prohibit or allow a lot of practices or customs of women.
In addition, they have clarified that the tattoo industry is highly regulated in Australia and that the chances of getting any disease or infection are very low. Faced with this situation, and as explained in 324: "Unless there is any evidence of an infection as a result of the tattoo, the decision is unreasonable.".
The judge who needed work
Women who get tattoos while breastfeeding their children? Surely there are many, but many. And not only that tattoos are made ... there are those who smoke, who have a drink, who live in slums, who eat ice cream sometimes, or hamburgers, who take the car to go with their children to buy, who go to hospitals to see sick relatives, where they are exposed to infections that could put babies at risk, they have to work, they kiss other people, they hang children in "dangerous" backpacks where they can fall or They carry them in strange strollers with wheels, at the risk of them tipping over.
Come on there are many "dangerous" things that a woman who breastfeeds can do and, in such a situation, the judge will get tired of signing sentences. Some will have to prohibit breastfeeding, others go to the hospital to see their relatives or friends, others both (not breastfeeding, because you can catch a cold and do not get sick, because you can spread it even without breastfeeding).
Come on, I do not see where to take it and the most logical thing in this case is that the decision of the judge is appealed to a higher instance that, I hope with more sanity, dictates that that mom can breastfeed as much as she wants, get one or get eight tattoos.
UPGRADE: Following the publication of this entry, new related details have been found in the media. One of the big questions was the origin of the complaint. It is already known that the judge has ruled on a complaint from the father of the baby.
There has also been talk of the possibility that the mother has a relationship with drugs, but despite the fact that the mother admitted that once she used cannabis during breastfeeding, the tests that have been done in this regard have been negative.
