The Australian medical community has welcomed a decision to force a sceptical vaccination organisation to change its "misleading" name.
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal on Monday upheld a decision by Fair Trading, which called on the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) to change its name as it was misleading.
In handing down her decision on the network's appeal, Magistrate Nancy Hennessy said that while the network couldn't be classified as strictly "anti" vaccination, its main objective was to highlight the risks of vaccinations.
"Without any information, other than the name, an ordinary member of the public would be likely to be misled into thinking that one of AVN's objectives is to give a pro-vaccination message or, at least, to provide comprehensive information about vaccination," she found.
"That is not the case."
The network should consider using a name that included "risk" or "sceptic", she suggested.
President of the Australian Medical Association, AMA NSW Professor Brian Owler welcomed the decision, saying AVN's name incorrectly suggests to parents that they are accessing comprehensive, independent health advice.
"The importance of vaccination cannot be understated in helping to keep children free from harm. Ultimately, your family GP is your best source of advice about vaccination."
Minister for Fair Trading Anthony Roberts said it was about being "open and upfront about what you stand for, not hiding behind a name".
He said Fair Trading reserved the right to pursue costs associated with any ongoing legal action undertaken by AVN.
The network has hit back at the decision saying it "exemplified the current climate of government-sanctioned abuse and hatred of anyone who steps away from mainstream medical dogma".
In a statement released by the AVN, it said the case was not about its name but about a government wanting to waste millions in trying to close it down, but not researching the health effects of vaccination.
"It's about a government that would rather abuse its power to censor opposition and criticism by a legitimate health consumer group than to actually address the issues involved."
Share
