Parents win right to have disabled daughter, 11, sterilised - Telegraph Parents win right to have disabled daughter, 11, sterilised --> Accessibility links Skip to article Skip to navigation Tuesday 09 March 2010 | Australia feed All feeds --> checkLoginStatus(); Advertisement Website of the Telegraph Media Group with breaking news, sport, business, latest UK and world news. Content from the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and video from Telegraph TV. Enhanced by Google Home News Sport Finance Lifestyle Comment Travel Culture Technology Fashion Jobs Dating Games Offers UK World UK Politics Celebrities Obituaries Weird Earth Science Health News Education Topics News Blogs News Video USA Barack Obama Europe Asia China Middle East Africa and Indian Ocean Australia and the Pacific Home News World News Australia and the Pacific Australia Parents win right to have disabled daughter, 11, sterilised - The parents of a profoundly disabled Australian girl have won a court case to have the 11-year-old sterilised, prompting claims the ruling amounts to an "abuse of human rights". - Bonnie Malkin in Sydney Published: 5:02PM GMT 09 Mar 2010 The girl, known only as Angela, suffers from an extreme form of the neurological disorder Retts Syndrome. She cannot communicate and "acts as a three-month-old baby would". Angela's parents had sought permission from the Family Court for doctors to perform an irreversible hysterectomy – the removal of her womb – to stop Angela's menstrual cycle, which they believed was the cause of her epileptic seizures, and lessen her distress. Related Articles - US student becomes anti-abortion star for clandestine filming - - Father of Babe in the Wood murder victim arrested - - Madonna denies she is using fame to fast-track latest adoption - - Recession will prompt rise in domestic violence - - Judge bans paedophile who abused girl, 11, from taking Viagra on NHS - Her mother told the court that her daughter had experienced irregular menstrual periods since she was nine years old that caused her pain and exhaustion. Other medications had not worked and three gynaecologists had agreed that a hysterectomy was the best solution, she said. However, Queensland Health, the government body responsible for carrying out the surgery, would not approve the procedure without a court order. Justice Paul Cronin, ruling in the Brisbane Family Court, said the decision would improve Angela's life and was "in the child's best interests". He said the procedure was "urgent and necessary". "Angela is never going to have the benefits of a normal teenage and adult life," the judgment read. "A fundamental consideration is ... the risks to Angela's life as well as her general health." The court heard Angela could not speak or control her movements and relied on her parents to be fed, transported and washed. She had no bladder control, wore a nappy and had a special walking frame because she could not stand unsupported. A paediatrician said pregnancy would be "disastrous" for Angela. Despite the statements from the medical profession, the ruling has incensed disability groups. They claimed that forced sterilisation of any girl was an abuse of human rights and that in this case it was being used as a "quick fix" for a complex situation. Carolyn Frohmader, chief executive of Women with a Disability Australia, has campaigned for a law banning the sterilisation of disabled children. "It is only ever the disabled girls," she told the Australian newspaper. "When you go through the cases, there is never a boy, no matter how intellectually disabled, who has to be sterilised." Therese Sands, executive director of People with Disabilities Australia, said she was "alarmed to hear that children are still being sterilised". "It is our view that nobody has the right to sterilise a child, not a judge, not a parent, not unless it's a matter of life or death." But not all disability advocates agreed. Mark Patterson, National Council on Intellectual Disability executive director, admitted the issue "is a very difficult one". "These families have been through a lot, and done all they can, and throw their hands up and say 'What more can I do?'," he said. "I think people should give them a bit of a break." In Australia, parents are ordinarily able to make decisions about medical treatment for their children without consulting the authorities. However in 1992 the High Court found that serious, invasive, irreversible medical procedures required the permission not of parents but of the courts. Angela's case echoes that of Ashley, a severely disabled American girl whose parents controversially opted to use a course of surgery and hormone supplements to stunt her growth. Ashely, who suffered from a severe brain impairment and was not able to sit up, walk, talk or eat without assistance, underwent a hysterectomy and was given hormones to prevent her growing more than 4ft 5in (1.3 metres) or weighing more than 75lb (34kg) In 2007, when her case came to light, Ashely's parents said that they had decided to act because they were anxious about the impact that fertility and her rapidly increasing size and weight would have on the quality of her life. They feared that she would become too big one day to lift, move, take on a family outing. However, the treatment, which included excising her breasts and putting her on a course of oestrogen, provoked outrage among organisations representing disabled people and some doctors, with many asking why a course of treatment that would not be considered for an able-bodied person should be allowed in this case. Email Print .at15t_email {display:none !important;} ul li.email span.at300bs {display:none !important;} .at15t_email {display:none !important;} ul li.email span.at300bs {display:none !important;} Share | tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7405283/Parents-win-right-to-have-disabled-daughter-11-sterilised.html'; tweetmeme_style = 'compact'; tweetmeme_source = 'TelegraphNews';

MATHS education is in crisis, with the number of students enrolled in a mathematics major at Australian universities declining by 15 per cent since 2001 and the number of students taking advanced maths at high school dropping 27 per cent between 1995 and 2007. And many primary school teachers, who had dropped maths in order to try for a better tertiary entry rank, had developed ''mathematics phobia'' which they were passing on to their pupils. A review conducted for the Group of Eight leading universities found the state of maths in Australia had deteriorated to a dangerous level. It concluded that in the short term there were only two conceivable responses: more remedial programs for undergraduates and graduates leaving with weaker degrees. Nalini Joshi, a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Sydney, said the situation was a ''looming disaster''. ''The trouble is the decline in the number of qualified teachers,'' she said. This led to a ''lack of inspiration'' for students who responded by turning their backs on the subject. ''As a result, the pool of people available to replace those teachers is dropping … [It's] a vicious cycle.'' The review, chaired by the former University of Sydney vice-chancellor Professor Gavin Brown, found the proportion of year 12 students taking the lowest level of maths - elementary - had increased by almost 30 per cent between 1995 and 2007 while those doing intermediate and advanced levels both fell. It also said that many maths teachers were underqualified - 40 per cent had not done three years of university study in maths (up from 30 per cent in 1999). Maths and statistics graduates are employed in a range of fields, including environmental science, meteorology, psychology, health sciences, geography, economics, finance and business. But many students still felt maths was not ''useful'', the review found. Already the CSIRO and the Bureau of Statistics have expressed concern about whether they will be able to recruit enough graduates to replace retiring staff, let alone to cover any growth in demand. And official government estimates have predicted demand for these graduates would grow at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent between 2006 and 2013. The review's recommendations include introducing a maths component to primary school teacher training, increasing remedial programs and reviewing science teaching in universities.

When the Barangaroo Delivery Authority called for a broad debate on its preferred development proposal, The Sydney Morning Herald approached the NSW branch of the Royal Institute of Architects for help. The institute's council agreed to circulate two questions. The Herald asked: do you believe construction of a pier into the harbour will set a precedent for other developments? More than 40 responded: two-thirds opposed the plan, while a third supported it, as these edited letters show. The primary issue is to soften the hard mile-long industrial container wharf linear water edge. So I support returning 3.5 hectares of water to the community through new coves, and to balance this I support having 0.5 hectares of new wharf (with hotel over) in the water. The gain to Sydney is about 300 metres of north-facing waterfront public domain on a site that faces west. The Opera House in its day broke every planning rule, yet it symbolises Sydney. Let's again be bold by doing what the Opera House does - challenge the interaction of land and water. Chris Johnson Former NSW government architect Like it or not, Sydney's merchant shipping has now been largely transferred to Botany Bay. The wharf at Woolloomooloo was the first redundant pier to be adapted for residential and commercial purposes rather than demolished. Subsequently, piers at Walsh Bay and West Darling Harbour have been utilised as residences and offices, all contributing to the vibrancy of the foreshore. A new public pier at Barangaroo with a commercial component would hardly set a precedent. I personally like the notion of the proposed pier extending from the major pedestrian connection of Barangaroo back to the city. A tall building on the pier would need to be very skilfully designed to minimise shadow on Darling Harbour and, particularly, on its east-side pedestrian areas. I am not convinced that the present schematics address [that]. Douglas McKay Douglas McKay and Associates I am happy to see a pier [at] Barangaroo, since it reflects the historic context of the site and it brings drama to the foreshore edge. Sydney needs to move away from the bland commercial architecture we have within the city and look to the opportunity confronting ''the edge'' offers. Sites such as this are not common and each site should be treated on its merits. Let us confront and be brave about this opportunity. Stephen Blaxland BN Group I support the overall scheme which breaks the site into three parts of roughly equal area. I firmly believe reinstating the point to resemble its original topographical levels [and] foreshore line, acknowledging the indigenous people, is beyond argument when … compared to the existing concrete slab. There is a sincerity to it, as opposed to a selfishness. I'm convinced by the proposition that it is an ''exclamation mark, the pier closes off the broad water to allow ferries to tie up and presents an entry into Darling Harbour''. In principle and in the majority of built environments I would agree with the tried and tested solution that all buildings should fall and follow the topography at some agreed parallel height. However, in this instance I think the ''exclamation mark'' transcends the mediocrity of monotony. John P. Mangraviti, C3D Design The Opera House sits on a pier which intrudes deep into the harbour. There are two large and long piers in Pyrmont that would face the proposed pier at Barangaroo. Both piers are private properties used as commercial suites and residential apartments, and both - just like the piers in Walsh Bay - have absolutely no heritage value at all. Same applies to Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf. If all those piers were allowed to stay (for good), what is wrong if another one is added? The present scheme by Lord Rogers should be encouraged to proceed for its creativity, courage and design merit. Kiril Manolev Manolev Associates FOR MORE LETTERS

Red alert ... Michael Clarke and Lara Bingle at the Allan Border Medal. Photo: Getty Images What a mess. Now not so much a case of the dog wagging the tail as the Pup tailing the WAG. Other than that excruciating pun, the most unfortunate thing about Michael Clarke's mercy dash to the arms of a damsel distressed by being photographed undressed is that, rather than merely another tawdry made-for-magazine melodrama, this sordid story now has a legitimate place in the sports pages. For two reasons, given the AFL is considering what, if any, action to take against amateur pornographer and occasional Brisbane Lions forward Brendan Fevola, whose unhappy snap of Lara Bingle set in train the series of events that has gossip columnists wearing bibs for fear of short-circuiting their keyboards with drool. The Australian vice-captain abandoning a significant tour. An AFL star testing the twitchy trigger finger of a league that uses its social responsibility policies as a marketing tool. A young, well, whatever it is Bingle does, in such a tizzy that she has reprised her only memorable public utterance: ''Where the bloody hell are you?'' Serious stuff. A situation that has already prompted po-faced debate about Clarke's suitability to captain Australia, serious condemnation of Fevola's malevolence, earnest arm's-length diagnosis of Bingle's mental state and - a personal favourite - disingenuous calls from ex-jocks working in the media for the (other) media to leave them all alone to sort out their ''serious personal problems''. Do not feel the legitimate sporting connotations to this trashy tale mean you are obliged to engage. You do not have to participate in the talkback debate about whether Clarke's mercy dash makes him a white knight or misguided cuckold. You can take for granted that Fevola's decision to take, and most likely distribute, the picture of the clearly uncomfortable Bingle confirms his status as an A-grade moron. You do not have to even try to understand how someone traumatised by her nude likeness being downloaded at a rate previously known only by Tiger Woods's lovers then lowered her credibility by selling the story to a glossy. Instead, unless you have Dr Phil on speed dial, feel free to sit back and have a laugh. If not at the apparently feckless Clarke, the appropriately named Bingle and the cave-dwelling Fevola specifically, then at all those in modern sport - the administrators, the athletes, the agents, the media spruikers - whose eagerness to embrace every aspect of the entertainment industry, with little or no consideration of the inherent pitfalls, has created this farcical situation. Laugh about how the lucrative marketing of athletes as stars well beyond their field of endeavour - spokesmen, models, ambassadors - has invited an unhealthy focus, even obsession, with their private lives and swollen bank balances and inflated egos. By treating sports stars as rock stars, they now behave like rock stars. Who would have thunk it? Laugh about how the sometimes unseemly, always self-serving relationship between agents and the more sensational sections of the media means that, for all the hysterical headlines about a ''Star's Heartache'', the people who suffer most are those young or impressionable enough to have their tastes and behaviour shaped/informed by a celebrity culture now as shallow as a microbe's bath tub. Laugh about how sporting bodies who preach ''respect and responsibility'' towards women also encourage players to parade wives and girlfriend on the red carpet wearing not much more than Bingle in the infamous photograph. Thus a woman's role as status symbols, attachment and the rightful reward for athletic achievement has been endorsed and ''WAG'', once a derisive term for a spendaholic ditz, has become an official office. And let yourself have a giggle about poor Clarke who - apparently straight-faced - asked out loud why a New Zealand camera crew was following him at training last week. Let others decide if he is fit to be skipper. For now, Clarke and the rest should just have you in fits.

Gone, but not forgotten ... Kiwi fans at yesterday's ODI match in Hamilton have a bit of fun with Michael Clarke's abrupt departure. Photo: Chris Hillock Michael Clarke needs to choose between a fraught personal life and his career in cricket. All the evidence indicates that the current position is untenable. As Mark Anthony could testify, obsession can be a man's undoing. If Clarke is unwilling to make the call, then cricket will make it for him. In the nick of time, Ricky Ponting sorted himself out. Now it is Clarke's turn. Ordinarily, journos are the last people on earth able to speak about anyone else's affairs. Most adopt the approach advocated by the great Bill O'Reilly, namely that players are fair game on the park and otherwise off limits. Now and then, black eyes and publicised text messages force reporters to don the clean skin but it is an uncomfortable guise reluctantly undertaken. However, it is no longer possible to turn the other ear and ignore the gossip and acrid gossipers. Clarke's hasty and presumably urgent trip home from New Zealand denies him the luxury of privacy. It is no small thing for a vice-captain to walk out on a team at any stage, let alone on the eve of a big match. A few days ago he was leading these same men and doing a good job by all accounts. Make no mistake, a lot is at stake, for a fine player and Australian cricket. In the spotlight ... Michael Clarke's relationship with Lara Bingle is again front page news. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones Ordinarily, a player rushes home upon hearing some dreadful news of a family loss, impending or completed. Or else he has been informed of a devastating sickness. Now and then a player is allowed to attend a birth in the modern way. Occasionally depression strikes a player down, a curse that afflicted Marcus Trescothick on the last Ashes tour. On these occasions, all and sundry conduct themselves with due sensitivity. Clarke's case is different. His responsibilities do not permit withdrawal on any except the most desperate circumstances. None of the evidence indicates that any such conditions prevailed. Certainly he heard some bad news about his partner, but it pertained to disarray as opposed to crisis. Clarke's problem is easy to state and hard to resolve. He seems to be locked into a love affair with a beautiful but possibly unstable young woman. Whatever the reality of her life, supposing reality makes an appearance now and then, Lara Bingle stumbles from public relations disaster to public relations calamity. Restaurateurs complain about her manners and the poor company she keeps. Fashionistas talk of her headstrong ways and strange customs. Moreover, she seems intent on boosting the sales of all those magazines bought by the female of the species. In short, she craves attention and courts controversy. Yet Clarke, the class act of the pairing, seems besotted. Beauty and danger have always been a potent combination. Look in the mirror and find another fool to that folly. As far as Australian cricket is concerned, the problem is the instability caused by this turbulent relationship. Let us get away from all the talk about sportsmen being role models. Precious few of the younger brigade spend enough time away from their computers and iPods to give a hoot about anything else. In any case, it is time to stop expecting sportsmen to conduct themselves like novitiates. Let them inspire on the field and otherwise be granted the same leeway as everyone else. Maturity is the issue. From a distance, the romance has all the traits of a schoolboy crush. Clarke has scored a stack of runs for his country, has travelled to many places, has seen and done a lot, has become accomplished. By now gilded youth ought to have given way to adult sensibility. Perhaps it has. Perhaps the problem is that Bingle remains the same waif-like figure supposedly in need of protection. On this occasion, it is true, Bingle has been grievously wronged. Apparently some dickhead thought it amusing to pass around pictures of her emerging from a bath. Her chivalrous partner rode to the rescue. Nothing in her life, though, suggests that she has ever emerged from the chrysalis of youthful beauty. It's a dilemma. Clarke yearns to fulfil himself yet remains in thrall to a lass living in a celebrity time warp. By and large, top-class sportsmen marry young. Among cricketers, Viv Richards, Ian Botham, Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar walked the aisle at an early age. All of these marriages survived the ensuing years. In each case, the wife had the maturity and adaptability needed to survive the demands of the distant life. As a result they were able to sustain stable family lives and solid homes as their husbands soared and sank. They understood their role, did not make any extra demands. They were the counterpoint that ambition required. Accordingly, their partners were able to focus on their cricket. Clarke has no such settlement in his life. Until it is obtained, Cricket Australia will be reluctant to put the national team completely in his hands. He has always come across as an essentially likeable young fellow currently a little off track but bound sooner or later to emerge as a sincere and big-hearted man. Now might be a good time to take that step.

Fast bowler Glenn McGrath was typical of most cricketers and footballers 15 to 20 years ago when he arrived in Sydney from the dusty plains of NSW and vowed to encourage his children to play golf or tennis in order for them to ''earn some real money.'' Since then cricketers have caught up with the golfers and tennis players, becoming the first ''team millionaires'' of Australian sport. McGrath did not anticipate the money coming into Australian cricket from overseas TV rights, and a new pay deal for Australia's top 25 cricketers will provide them with an average $1 million a year. Higher than expected earnings for Cricket Australia over the past four years meant its revenue was about $100 million above the $478 million forecast and, under a deal struck with the Australian Cricketers Association, players receive 25 per cent of total revenue generated. AFL footballers also receive a quarter of total revenue from broadcasting rights, gate takings, sponsorship, merchandising and any other income received by the 16 clubs and the central administration. Super 14 players receive 26 per cent of what is called ''player generated revenue'', a sum not comparable with total revenue because it excludes income such as foreign exchange earnings, interest received, rent and some grants. Rugby union players receive between 15 and 20 per cent of total revenue, about the same as NRL players.. According to the NRL's chief executive, David Gallop, the NRL receives about $150 million a year and the 16 clubs average receipts of $13 million to $14 million. Each club has a salary cap of $4.1 million, and all but the Warriors pay the full amount, meaning the wage bill of the clubs in 2010 will be about $65 million. Another $2 million is paid in third-party deals with club-associated sponsors and an additional $3.5 million is paid to about 80 players in NRL-sanctioned sponsorship arrangements. A total revenue pool of $374 million and player payments of $71 million means the NRL players' share of the revenue cake is 19 per cent. However, with 25 players at each of the NRL's 16 clubs, the average salary is well below the mean of Super 14's 132 fully contracted players and lower than the AFL average payment. Ian Schubert, the NRL's salary cap boss, says the average NRL salary in 2010 will be $164,000, based on 25 players sharing $4.1 million, although the $5.5 million in sponsorship money across the NRL lifts the average to $177,750. This is well short of the medium 2008 AFL payment of $233,000. An AFL spokesman said the 2009 figures would not be available for three weeks but salaries had increased 4 per cent on 2008, meaning the average payment to the players at the AFL's 16 clubs last year, including marketing deals, would be $240,000 to $245,000. ''Total payments to players in 2008 was $129 million and AFL revenue was $327 million, while separate club revenue would probably be $200 million,'' an AFL spokesman said, meaning players share of total revenue was 24.4 per cent. According to the Australian Rugby Union Players Association, the average 2008 player salary for Australia's four Super 14 franchises (Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs and Western Force) was $238,738, on a par with the AFL and also well above the NRL. Another factor is the effort involved in earning the income. The NRL men play two more games a year than AFL players and nearly double the 13 matches played by a Super 14 player, although Wallabies play an additional 12 to 15 games a year. The Wallabies are the highest paid elite squad of the three football codes, averaging $380,000 a year in 2008, while the average for those who play Super 14 and finish the season playing club rugby is $130,000. But the AFL's 2008 annual report lists two players - believed to be Carlton's Chris Judd and St Kilda's Nick Riewoldt - receiving $1 million a year. The NRL's highest-paid player would probably earn half this. A weak NRL Players Association and a grossly underpaid broadcasting deal are the chief reasons league players echo McGrath's comments of 15 years ago. Furthermore, the NRL pitches its salary cap at the capacity to pay of its poorest club. The Sharks, with a turnover of $11 million, spend 37 per cent of income on player salaries, while the Broncos, with an income of $26 million, outlay only 15 per cent.