Horror as 1000 children to be tested for STIs. Here's what comes next
A Health Department spokeswoman said the department would not comment on the specifics of suspected exposure to protect children's sensitive health information.
A government source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said authorities wanted to rule out the possibility that the children had been exposed to infections such as syphilis given the spike in Victorian cases over the last decade.
How long will parents have to wait?
Dr Nisha Khot, the vice president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said parents should know their child's health status relatively quickly.
Loading
'STI screening results usually only take 24 to 48 hours, depending on what test is done,' she said.
Khot said Victoria's health system had the capacity to conduct the tests the Health Department is urging for the children, but that the bigger question was ongoing support for alleged victims and their families.
'The children will need appropriately qualified clinicians to assess their needs beyond the tests.'
The state government has established a dedicated advice hotline to assist families with health and screening information, as well as link them to specialist services such as mental health support.
Will any infections be treatable?
Doctors who spoke to this masthead said most STIs could be treated with antibiotics delivered either orally or administered as an injection.
Khot said the exceptions were Hepatitis B and HIV, which can be managed with other treatments but not cured.
If left untreated, gonorrhea, for example, can lead to permanent health problems involving scar tissue, long-term pain and infertility. Late-stage syphilis can cause brain damage, heart disease and even blindness.
But Chief Health Officer Dr Christian McGrath said on Tuesday that affected families and the broader community could be reassured that any infections as a result of this case could be treated with antibiotics.
'There's no broader public health risk to the community,' he said.
A suburban GP, who declined to be named due to the sensitivities of the matter, said childcare workers at the centres and police working on the case should monitor their mood over the next few weeks and speak to family, friends or a doctor if they notice any changes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
17 minutes ago
- Perth Now
IVF clinic's embryo bungle probe stays secret
Embattled fertility treatment company Monash IVF has refused to release the contents of an independent review into two separate IVF bungles that toppled the company's CEO earlier this year. The review of embryo mix-ups in the company's Brisbane and Melbourne clinics, conducted by high-profile Victorian barrister Fiona McLeod, will remain secret 'to protect the privacy of affected patients'. In an announcement to the ASX on Wednesday morning, the fertility clinic said in both instances, the treatments and circumstances were 'non-standard' and would 'not arise in the vast majority of IVF procedures'. Monash IVF has refused to release the contents of an independent review into two separate IVF bungles. 9News Credit: Supplied The review found the Brisbane incident, which resulted in IVF staff mistakenly implanting the wrong embryo into a patient in 2023, was the result of human error, Monash said in its statement. The clinic was forced to apologise in June, after the Clayton clinic in Melbourne incorrectly transferred a patient's own embryo to that same patient 'contrary to the treatment plan which designated the transfer of an embryo of the patient's partner'. In the case of the Clayton clinic mishap, Monash said the review concluded '(The) incident resulted from a range of factors that included human error at multiple stages and IT system limitations in the very limited circumstances of an embryo transfer to a partner'. No further details on either case have been shared by the company. The fertility clinic said in both instances the treatments and circumstances were 'non-standard' and would 'not arise in the vast majority of IVF procedures' Credit: Supplied Acting CEO Malik Jainudeen, who replaced former head Michael Knaap following his resignation just two days after the company's June admission, reassured patients and investors that the company was implementing the recommendations outlined in the review. 'To the affected patients and everyone who entrusts Monash IVF with their dreams of building a family, we are deeply sorry for the distress these incidents have caused,' he said. 'We have implemented or will be implementing the recommendations of the independent review and have taken additional measures to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in the future.' The company is set to announce its results for the 2025 financial year on Friday, with its share price sitting at 82 cents, down more than 42 per cent over the year.
Sydney Morning Herald
18 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The ‘unworthy' cancer with a terrible survival rate and the program seeking to change it
Lung cancer is particularly lethal because it is silent, with almost no symptoms until the disease has progressed. Forty-two per cent of diagnoses are for final-stage cancer, when it is almost too late for treatment. The screening program will use low-dose CT scanners to check all heavy smokers aged 50 to 70. By catching cancer at an earlier stage, when it can be more effectively treated, it is expected the program will save 12,000 lives over the next decade. Smoking is the major risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 90 per cent of male and 65 per cent of female cases. When the tobacco leaf is dried, two nitrosamine molecules are produced. When the tobacco is ignited, the nitrosamines enter the lungs, where they can mutate DNA, turning healthy cells cancerous. Loading Lung cancer itself is relatively survivable if caught early, as surgeons can remove the cancerous tissue. 'Our lungs are actually really remarkable. You can more or less remove one whole lung, and for the average person, they wouldn't notice,' says Professor Brian Oliver, a leading respiratory researcher at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney. But that cuts both ways. Cancer can take over large parts of the lung without the patient even noticing. It is only once the tumour grows into an airway that a bloody cough can develop. By this stage, it may be too late. Survival rates halve at each stage the cancer is detected after the first. Hence, the screening program. A 2021 meta-analysis of nine screening pilots covering thousands of people found a 16 per cent reduction in lung-cancer mortality. 'We're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.' Amy* But the idea long struggled to get traction among policy-makers, says Brooke. 'We just don't blame other diseases like we do with lung cancer,' he says. 'When we started to talk about the prioritisation of lung cancer screening, others said that ovarian cancer was more worthy.' The change came when advocates started taking a leaf from campaigns run by HIV-AIDS organisations in the '80s. 'A highly stigmatised community that had been pilloried for no reason,' says Brooke. 'We used that template.' Loading As with all screening programs, overdiagnosis remains a real risk. East Asian countries have heavily promoted lung cancer screening over the past few decades. In response, many non-smokers – particularly women – presented for screening. The result: a dramatic increase in lung surgeries, far above the actual rate of cancer detected. Screening often catches slow-growing cancers that probably aren't life-threatening; about 9 per cent of cancers spotted in one pivotal trial are considered 'overdiagnosed'. This problem is exacerbated if you screen a low-risk population – such as non-smoking women. 'Even before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made, the clinicians in those countries are just going ahead with [surgery]. And then not even finding any cancer,' says Professor Katy Bell, an expert in overdiagnosis based at the University of Sydney. 'There is definitely potential for harm.' Australia's program was designed with this in mind. That's why it targets only smokers. The economics of lung cancer screening are also tricky; early estimates suggested it simply wasn't cost-effective. People who smoke are at higher risk of a range of diseases, not just lung cancer. Does catching cancer really change their life-expectancy? It's not clear from the data we have. But health economists estimate for every $60,000 spent on the program, one Australian will enjoy an extra year of disease-free life – just within the cost-threshold the government is typically willing to pay. Amy*, 27, is a smoker who 'comes from a family of smokers', some of whom have developed lung cancer. 'It's a growing, lingering fear in the back of my head,' she says. Loading She's delighted about the introduction of a screening program. 'I can understand where the stigma comes from. On the surface level, it is our choice to smoke,' she says. 'It's something I'm very aware of and working towards – I've tried quitting multiple times. But we're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
The Age
18 hours ago
- The Age
The ‘unworthy' cancer with a terrible survival rate and the program seeking to change it
Lung cancer is particularly lethal because it is silent, with almost no symptoms until the disease has progressed. Forty-two per cent of diagnoses are for final-stage cancer, when it is almost too late for treatment. The screening program will use low-dose CT scanners to check all heavy smokers aged 50 to 70. By catching cancer at an earlier stage, when it can be more effectively treated, it is expected the program will save 12,000 lives over the next decade. Smoking is the major risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 90 per cent of male and 65 per cent of female cases. When the tobacco leaf is dried, two nitrosamine molecules are produced. When the tobacco is ignited, the nitrosamines enter the lungs, where they can mutate DNA, turning healthy cells cancerous. Loading Lung cancer itself is relatively survivable if caught early, as surgeons can remove the cancerous tissue. 'Our lungs are actually really remarkable. You can more or less remove one whole lung, and for the average person, they wouldn't notice,' says Professor Brian Oliver, a leading respiratory researcher at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney. But that cuts both ways. Cancer can take over large parts of the lung without the patient even noticing. It is only once the tumour grows into an airway that a bloody cough can develop. By this stage, it may be too late. Survival rates halve at each stage the cancer is detected after the first. Hence, the screening program. A 2021 meta-analysis of nine screening pilots covering thousands of people found a 16 per cent reduction in lung-cancer mortality. 'We're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.' Amy* But the idea long struggled to get traction among policy-makers, says Brooke. 'We just don't blame other diseases like we do with lung cancer,' he says. 'When we started to talk about the prioritisation of lung cancer screening, others said that ovarian cancer was more worthy.' The change came when advocates started taking a leaf from campaigns run by HIV-AIDS organisations in the '80s. 'A highly stigmatised community that had been pilloried for no reason,' says Brooke. 'We used that template.' Loading As with all screening programs, overdiagnosis remains a real risk. East Asian countries have heavily promoted lung cancer screening over the past few decades. In response, many non-smokers – particularly women – presented for screening. The result: a dramatic increase in lung surgeries, far above the actual rate of cancer detected. Screening often catches slow-growing cancers that probably aren't life-threatening; about 9 per cent of cancers spotted in one pivotal trial are considered 'overdiagnosed'. This problem is exacerbated if you screen a low-risk population – such as non-smoking women. 'Even before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made, the clinicians in those countries are just going ahead with [surgery]. And then not even finding any cancer,' says Professor Katy Bell, an expert in overdiagnosis based at the University of Sydney. 'There is definitely potential for harm.' Australia's program was designed with this in mind. That's why it targets only smokers. The economics of lung cancer screening are also tricky; early estimates suggested it simply wasn't cost-effective. People who smoke are at higher risk of a range of diseases, not just lung cancer. Does catching cancer really change their life-expectancy? It's not clear from the data we have. But health economists estimate for every $60,000 spent on the program, one Australian will enjoy an extra year of disease-free life – just within the cost-threshold the government is typically willing to pay. Amy*, 27, is a smoker who 'comes from a family of smokers', some of whom have developed lung cancer. 'It's a growing, lingering fear in the back of my head,' she says. Loading She's delighted about the introduction of a screening program. 'I can understand where the stigma comes from. On the surface level, it is our choice to smoke,' she says. 'It's something I'm very aware of and working towards – I've tried quitting multiple times. But we're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
