Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

new nice guidelines do they threaten the freedom to decide not to vaccinate?

(15 Posts)
pofacedandproud Wed 22-Jul-09 12:38:07

pasted from Starlight Mackenzie's post on Andy Burnham thread.

'From the NICE guidelines published today:

www.nice.org.uk/CG89

Ensuring access to appropriate medical care or treatment
1.3.9 Consider neglect if parents or carers fail to administer essential prescribed treatment for their child.

1.3.10 Consider neglect if parents or carers repeatedly fail to attend essential follow-up appointments that are necessary for their child’s health and wellbeing.

1.3.11 Consider neglect if parents or carers persistently fail to engage with relevant child health promotion programmes which include:
• immunisation
• health and development reviews
• screening.'

Does this mean parents who don't vaccinate/vaccinate selectively are not going to be automatically suspected of child neglect? What do people think?

JonAndHate Wed 22-Jul-09 12:50:57

I think it's already the case that if parents fail to engage neglect is considered.

It doesn't mean parents have to vaccinate and SS will be called if they don't.

It's not about the choices you make, more about how you go about it and the bigger picture that your choices paint.

I read it as if a child does not attend for any immunisations, any health and development reviews or any screening there may be reasons for concern.

I don't think this is unreasonable.

pofacedandproud Wed 22-Jul-09 12:52:38

no that is not unreasonable. But I am worried about a daft HV [I have met a couple as well as some lovely ones] taking it the wrong way, or even a daft gp.

paisleyleaf Wed 22-Jul-09 12:54:58

By the time we get onto vaccinations where we are
we seem to have finished with any HV contact anyway

lal123 Wed 22-Jul-09 12:57:23

this is the seond post re this. If a "daft HV" or a "daft GP" takes this the wrong way what exactly do you think would happen?

pagwatch Wed 22-Jul-09 13:01:18

well DD had no vaccinations and no health/development reviews and there is a bloody great notice which fills the screen every time I attend with her grin.

But I have visited my GP and allowed HV etc one visit to explain my decision making and saftisy them that my decisions are informed and not disinterested IYSWIM.
They don't worry about her or my other two at all. My GP is lovely actually

pofacedandproud Wed 22-Jul-09 13:06:38

Well one gp berated me for not having ds vaccinated with MMR when he was 4 months old. When I pointed out that babies don't get that vaccination until they're 13 months she was very embarrassed. I have no idea what they might do but the idea that not immunising according to the NHS schedule is a red flag for neglect is worrying. there is a difference between carefully deciding what is the best thing for an individual child's health, and just not bothering to turn up for immunisations, and nowhere is this differentiation made in the guidelines. That is what upsets me.

JonAndHate Wed 22-Jul-09 14:13:46

But pofaced carefully deciding, declining and informing HV/GP is what they mean by engaging. Not turning up repeatedly with no justifiable reason is what they're concerned about.

Individual GPs/HVs don't have the power to act on their own when it comes to child protection IYSWIM. The whole team (GP/HV/SS/court) would have to be 'daft' to misinterpret this.

They can be a pain in the backside though!

stuffitlllama Wed 22-Jul-09 14:21:49

I agree with poface.

I avoided vaccinations without having a discussion with anybody about it -- that's what bothers me. I rather hoped that the delaying tactics would work, without me going on some blacklist. And they did, but I wasn't neglectful, I just wanted privacy.

It does seem to mean that you have to respond to the health visitor and the GP and explain your reasons. But it does also indicate that parents are losing a lot of freedom as well as privacy when it comes to treating their children.

Given that there was a lot of fear of blacklisting and being struck off -- perhaps that has dissipated now -- I think it's understandable that parents might want to refuse or avoid without having a discussion with their health visitor about it.

It worries me a hell of a lot. I'm really glad I don't have a baby now. Crumbs. It seems really sinister to me.

stuffitlllama Wed 22-Jul-09 14:22:21

And thanks poface for this thread. I had no idea.

stuffitlllama Wed 22-Jul-09 14:24:19

Actually I didn't avoid all of them, the later ones I avoided, after I started reading up.

I think a lot of people who don't engage with the jab and monitoring programmes are actually more clued up about their children and it's a very conscious decision for them.

I don't like that they will have to explain themselves or SS will be called in.

ZephirineDrouhin Wed 22-Jul-09 14:29:17

I'm a little bit unhappy about this too. Sure it doesn't mean parents have to vaccinate, but it certainly brings compulsory vaccinations a big step closer should a future government decide this is desirable.

ZephirineDrouhin Wed 22-Jul-09 14:30:06

Is anyone going to bring this up with Andy Burnham?

paisleyleaf Wed 22-Jul-09 14:31:19

I think the Andy Burnham thread was the first of the three posts about this

stuffitlllama Wed 22-Jul-09 18:41:10

Have been thinking about this, it means that if you don't want to vaccinate you can be threatened with a call to social service. And what does "screening" mean?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now