Could the Gillick Competence test be used on our kids to ensure vaccinations in school?

[steakandcheeseplease]

I feel like I have to preface this with I believe that covid exists, I've been jabbed, family members have had it (luckily all still here), I believe in long covid - I think my father and neighbour have it - so I don't get accused of being a conspiracy nutter.

I think Good Morning Britain went to far this morning, I'm getting a bit suspicious of 'suggestions' being talking about on TV, especially this show as I think they are really testing the waters to how the public will react/behave. And we have seen time after time when people say 'that won't happen, its implemented a few weeks/months later.

This morning they were talking about 16/17 year olds having the vaccine to potentially stop the class bubbles bursting. (This in its self is another thread) & Dr Hilary actually gave incorrect information but it was pointed out and he apologised.

However Adil ray, one of the presenters brought up the Gillick Competency test and this could be used to by pass parents who don't want their children to be vaccinated. Some studies claim that the GC test can be used from 11.5 years old.

So potentially, if this was passed/implemented your child could decide at 11.5 that they will have the vaccination with out your consent.

Vaccinations for younger children will happen. It will probably take place in school and we will be given the option of opting out ( I hope)

Allowing children to use the GC test in this circumstance is a terrible idea. This is not a medical treatment that has been used for years and is completely sound. We are still discovering what this vaccine does. Our children do still need our guidance over this.

We must be really wary of not allowing our emotions surrounding Covid to set a precedence we will not be able to undo. By allowing the government or schools to bypass parental consent we are giving up our parental rights.

You might agree in this circumstance that its acceptable, but what about if the government see how well that worked and decide that they want to lower teenage pregnancies and use these new powers to start giving our young girls birth control injections in school ? What if they ask our children if they want to be part of a new drug trial? Young people are easily manipulated, I've worked with children long enough to know that most things can be easily sold to them if given in the right light.

If your happy for your child to have the vaccine, thats your choice and you should afford that choice to other parents and always advocate pro choice in regards to this vaccine - even if you think every one should have it. Because your not only taking others parents rights away, you will complicit in taking your own away.

Its really concerned me that this was raised on a breakfast show whilst young people are getting ready for school.

I don't agree with the OP
I don't want to choose. I want my 14 year old perfectly capable child to be allowed for herself.
I'd want that whether she agreed with me or she didn't. I want her autonomy respected in an age appropriate fashion which is what Gillick competence is about.
This is the normal way that such things are done and there is no need for Covid vaccines to be any different

Your post is the WTAF one
'Against their parents consent' makes no sense. If the parent had consented it wouldn't be against their consent. It's against their refusal of consent and it's normal for children who are old enough to be able to make decisions their parents don't agree with as in the original case where Mrs Gillick's daughter was able to obtain contraception without her parents consent.

@Plansandpresents

Is it not Fraser competence now? I believe Mrs Gillick complained about her name being used because this idea came about as a result of her losing her case. In response, Judge Fraser, who made the original ruling said that his name could be used.

Fraser guidelines specifically refers to contraceptives and sexual health matters. Gillick competency is still used for when talking about competency in general terms.

@steakandcheeseplease I actually watched this segment this morning and I was so cross watching it.

I too am very wary of shows - especially GMB 'discussing' ideas then they come reality.

There is simply not enough data for children to make an 'informed choice' - you are only giving them partial information. You are allowing them to make a decision that could ultimately effect the rest of their life. You are only showing them part of the story.

Every parent I've spoken (primary and early secondary) have taken a wait and see approach - this includes a GP. Its only on MN I see posters who have kids that have signed up for the trials or can't wait for little Johnny to have a vaccine they dont need for the greater good, so I wonder if push comes to shove would this be the straw that broke the camels back or are people that fickle they would give their kids an injection they dont need just so they can go holiday. Insane.

And I agree with the swine flu point - looks like people have very short memories. I wonder if those parents will be advocating vaccinations for children this time round?

I'd be supportive of 16 and 17 year olds being able to make the decision, but 12 year olds I don't think so.

It all depends on how the Gillick Competence is assessed, and by whom - don't assume it's fool proof. Just because a HCP says your 12 year old is capable of making all their own medical decisions doesn't mean they are. Yep speaking from experience.

Schools already allow children at high school to override parents consent if they feel differently with other vaccines, don’t see how this is different. Not sure how they test but we always have a note on vaccine consent saying the children can give or remove consent.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

Your post is the WTAF one 'Against their parents consent' makes no sense. If the parent had consented it wouldn't be against their consent. It's against their refusal of consent and it's normal for children who are old enough to be able to make decisions their parents don't agree with as in the original case where Mrs Gillick's daughter was able to obtain contraception without her parents consent.

My post makes sense maybe you're reading it wrong. In fact I don't think you've grasped the whole point of the thread, I'll make it simple for you

• It was suggested on GMB that if children wanted the vaccine they could take a GC test - if their parents had not consented.

-Studies suggest GC test can be taken from 11 and half.

-Trials are ongoing and will be for some time

-How can children make an informed decision when the full data has still not been collected on the outcomes of the vaccines side effects.
(another point to be taken is who takes the actual blame if this child becomes effected by it?)

-What consequences will this have further down the line eg. how far is the reach of the 'state' when it comes to our children and could they push other vaccines/trials/injections and take away parental responsibly if they sold the idea good enough in school.

I think that's about it

@Angel2702

Schools already allow children at high school to override parents consent if they feel differently with other vaccines, don’t see how this is different. Not sure how they test but we always have a note on vaccine consent saying the children can give or remove consent.

And I'm sure those vaccines would have had YEARS of research, trials and outcomes.

However the covid vaccine has not.

I'm not sure why people are not grasping that tbh

@Scrambledcustard

“ And I'm sure those vaccines would have had YEARS of research, trials and outcomes.

However the covid vaccine has not.

I'm not sure why people are not grasping that tbh”

People are grasping that but think differently about it than you do, not everyone has to look at the evidence and come to the same conclusions as you do. Even the people who’s job it is to evaluate this stuff don’t all agree.

I do understand thread and the concept of Gillick competence which clearly you don't

It does not involve taking a test for one thing.

It is just the legal concept that children under the age of 18 can consent on their own authority to certain health interventions including vaccines and contraception if they demonstrate they are able to understand

You appear to think this is some new concept whereas the Gillick case was in 1986.

Shock horror your child can already consent to stuff that you don't agree to. Your parental rights are not absolute over a competent teenager. If you don't want them to have a vaccine if any kind and they do they can already agree to it without your say so. This is the current state of the law since 1986.

The amount of evidence that there is or isn't about vaccines is neither here nor there as children have access to the exact same amount of information on which to base their decision as adults do so it is only a matter of if they have capacity or they don't. Pretty much all 16 yr olds will, most 14 year olds will, most 11/12 yr olds probably won't but some might.

I think it's weird that the OP and others don't realise that this is how consent for children has been working for years

@sneezypants

If your happy for your child to have the vaccine, thats your choice and you should afford that choice to other parents and always advocate pro choice in regards to this vaccine - even if you think every one should have it. Because your not only taking others parents rights away, you will complicit in taking your own away.

I'm happy for my child to have the vaccine, and my child is happy to have it. If you child is happy to have it, I am happy for them to over rule you and do the right thing

Yep. I hope some kids do me. The way adults have gone on boggles my head.

Although the batshit way some people have gone on I'd be worried for the kid. Especially the ones who think the vaccine sheds the virus.

It's interesting that when there are posts about older teenagers/early twenties there are always lots of posters who quote how the human brain doesn't fully mature until 25. This is the reason for the frequently bizarre decisions and behaviours of teenagers.

Yet on threads like this a 13 year old is deemed old enough to agree to contraception, have jabs that havent been fully tested on children/those going through puberty and no doubt many mumsnetters would also agree to children taking puberty blockers because afterall, they are competent to make this decision.

I find it ridiculous, and yes to those parents who don't know, your docters surgery will all of sudden need your 13 year olds permission to make an appointment or for you to pick up a prescription for them.

Your 14 year old daughter, under pressure from her boyfriend, could go to the doctor and get the pill/contraception.

What tests are used to decide the child is competent you ask. Absolutely fuck all is the answer.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

I do understand thread and the concept of Gillick competence which clearly you don't

It does not involve taking a test for one thing.

It is just the legal concept that children under the age of 18 can consent on their own authority to certain health interventions including vaccines and contraception if they demonstrate they are able to understand

You appear to think this is some new concept whereas the Gillick case was in 1986.

Shock horror your child can already consent to stuff that you don't agree to. Your parental rights are not absolute over a competent teenager. If you don't want them to have a vaccine if any kind and they do they can already agree to it without your say so. This is the current state of the law since 1986.

The amount of evidence that there is or isn't about vaccines is neither here nor there as children have access to the exact same amount of information on which to base their decision as adults do so it is only a matter of if they have capacity or they don't. Pretty much all 16 yr olds will, most 14 year olds will, most 11/12 yr olds probably won't but some might.

I think it's weird that the OP and others don't realise that this is how consent for children has been working for years

Staggeringly still missing the point of the thread

I guess I am then
I have come to the conclusion that it's just yet another yawn yawn the trials don't finish until 2023 anti vax thread anyhow despite OPs protestations

Oh god so much misunderstanding of Gillick Competence!

• Firstly it isn't an absolute pass or fail test, it is entirely based upon the circumstances at the time. A child could be competent to consent to one decision but not another on the same day.

• Understanding what testing a procedure has or has not had is part of making an informed choice. Not having final testing doesn't mean that you can't make an informed choice otherwise no trials could take place

• Medical professionals aren't making decisions to treat children against their parents wishes willy nilly, they take consent and competence seriously. The consequences of them getting it wrong are very serious, they can end up in prison. If they have doubts they have the option of a second opinion or a court order.

• Any decision to over ride the wishes of either parent or child will be well documented in case of a subsequent legal challenge.

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon

Oh god so much misunderstanding of Gillick Competence!

• Firstly it isn't an absolute pass or fail test, it is entirely based upon the circumstances at the time. A child could be competent to consent to one decision but not another on the same day.

• Understanding what testing a procedure has or has not had is part of making an informed choice. Not having final testing doesn't mean that you can't make an informed choice otherwise no trials could take place

• Medical professionals aren't making decisions to treat children against their parents wishes willy nilly, they take consent and competence seriously. The consequences of them getting it wrong are very serious, they can end up in prison. If they have doubts they have the option of a second opinion or a court order.

• Any decision to over ride the wishes of either parent or child will be well documented in case of a subsequent legal challenge.

Who goes to prison? I think you'll find they dont in regards to vaccines.

The children and adults who were effected by the swine flu vaccine fought for over 11 years to get justice to what happened to them. It was the Government they had to take to court - who by the way fought them tooth and nail, repeatedly taking them back to the high courts. They did not want to admit responsibility.

And also I dont think anyone misunderstands GC, yet posters can't seem to get passed explaining the intricacies like no one else has already posted it. Its about how can you even allow that when the full data isn't even in yet. 12 years olds possibly choosing to take a vaccine that they dont need so they can see their mates more when in fact it could do more harm than good.

Im sure another poster will be along in a minute to claim GC has been used for years and explaining what it means..

Any medic providing treatment without appropriate consent (other than in a life saving emergency situation) has potentially committed a criminal offence, depending upon the treatment and the circumstances that could be a battery or it could be murder.

They can also find themselves sued for damages in the civil court.

Vaccine damage cases are different, I am talking about treatment without consent.

As for your point about the data, read my post again. You will see that I have addressed it.

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon

Any medic providing treatment without appropriate consent (other than in a life saving emergency situation) has potentially committed a criminal offence, depending upon the treatment and the circumstances that could be a battery or it could be murder.

They can also find themselves sued for damages in the civil court.

Vaccine damage cases are different, I am talking about treatment without consent.

As for your point about the data, read my post again. You will see that I have addressed it.

Yeah this thread is about the vaccine though

About consent to the vaccine.

Providing a vaccination without consent is providing treatment without consent. Which is what my post is about.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

I guess I am then I have come to the conclusion that it's just yet another yawn yawn the trials don't finish until 2023 anti vax thread anyhow despite OPs protestations

As soon as someone utters the year 2023 I know the score and eyeballs roll out of my head and pick up fluff on the floor.

Same old.