An Australian mom was prohibited by a judge to breastfeed her young because of her post-birth tattoo that might expose her baby to blood-borne viruses.
The ruling made by Federal Circuit Judge Matthew Myer came even if the mother got negative results on HIV and hepatitis tests. Myer did not find the result reliable and even described it "not conclusive," ABC News reports.
The case was taken to the court after the child's parents were caught in a parenting dispute, with the father raising his concern over the mother's tattoo.
Myer's decision shocked and stirred the breastfeeding advocates who find the ruling exaggerated.
Dr. Karleen Gribble from the University of Western Sydney said she had never seen a case similar to it. She shared that she heard of a case when one contracted HIV after getting a tattoo from Bali, but never heard of any similar incident in Australia.
She added that if the risk of contracting HIV and hepatitis from using tattoo parlor will be examined carefully, the risk is incalculably minute.
Rebecca Naylor, chief executive officer of the Australian Breastfeeding Assocation, also thinks that the chances of contracting an infection from getting a tattoo are very low. This is especially if it was done carefully and the infection control procedures are followed, ABC News reports.
Naylor does not agree with Myer's decision. She said, "I think unless there's evidence that she has contracted an infection as a result of that tattoo, then it is unreasonable."
A lawyer from Philadelphia, with expertise in breastfeeding and mothering law, does not agree with Myer's ruling as well. According to Jake Marcus the ruling based on the tattoo was unprecedented, Yahoo Parenting reports.
Naylor and the other breastfeeding advocates fear that the decision might set a dangerous precedent. Marcus shared the same thought.
According to her: "My fear in this, as with all other cases in which breastfeeding is court-limited, is the very dangerous precedent of examining every detail of a breastfeeding person's life in a way that impinges on her rights."
In a report from Yahoo Parenting, Marcus stressed that the fear given to tattoo-related danger is unreasonable given that it was done in a regulated facility. She compared the experience in a tattoo parlor to a regular dentist office where the chances of one to contract a blood-borne virus are almost zero.
According to her, one acquires blood-borne virus from sharing needles, but legitimate tattoo parlors, just like a regular dentist office, do not share needles.
Marcus remarks that unprotected sex has a higher chance of passing blood-borne pathogens compared to getting a tattoo.
She was disturbed with the ruling, saying, "I can't help but wonder whether this is a case of a clever attorney for the father having the luck of an ignorant and socially biased judge."
The still unidentified mother appealed against the ruling and the full bench of Family Court will hear it on Friday.
