to be worried about this consent form?

[LightShinesInTheDarkness]

DD (12) has brought home the NHS Consent form for the HPV Immunisation for Year 8s.

We have decided, in a discussion involving me, DD and DH, that we do not want her to have the vaccine.

However, I am upset that the form says : (quote) Please note that while your consent is important, if you refuse consent the vaccination may still be given

It also says, 'Reason consent refused (PTO for additional space to give us your reason for your decision' - do I really have to give details?

AIBU to feel concerned?

"do you object to any refusal of medical treatment by under 16's then?"

Is that question to me ?

I do reserve the right to save their lives if required.
Everything on your list is about enforced medical treatment not refusal but presumably that's for maximum effect ?
I'm quite laid back about 99.9% of decisions, they are involved in most discussions. But at some point the buck does stop with me and I have to be accountable for my decisions. I'll be able to look my children in the eye and say I did the research and made the decision with the best information available to me at the time, that's all any parent can do.
Blindly accepting the word of the school nurse is as wrong as not vaccinating in my opinion but having weighed up the pro's and cons somebody's word has to be final.

tokyo- where did that quote come from?

"Could it have been coincidence that just weeks before Carly first showed signs of illness, she had been injected Cervarix - a similar vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline. Her school had taken part in the trial that preceded the national roll-out of the Government's vaccination programme, targeting 12- to 18-year-old girls. "

Yes. If you give an injection in a six week period to an entire cohort of girls, some will fall ill in the following months. The question is, did the rate of illness rise as compared to the preceding months, before the vaccination, or as compared to previous years. And it didn't.

The previous one you linked is even more corking. "Ms Cave believes her daughter may have been poisoned by aluminium in the drug. " An injectable dose contains about 500 microgrammes of Al. Typically, drinking water from taps contains 100ug/l. So a single dose contains, shockingly, the same amount of Aluminium as a day's drinking water. Given all the circulating volume of blood traces, ultimately, to the water supply, even by the standards of the Daily Mail that's pretty poor. It also, handily, doesn't tell us how long elapsed between the injection and the paralysis. I wonder why not?

And, presumably, all the social workers in the council involved are part of The Conspiracy too. I hope they don't spend all the money GSK has bribed them with on organic lentils.

@foreverastudent

info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/incidence/

I know, I know, Cancer Research UK is Big Pharma. How can I compete with the Mail, eh?

Have you got shares in them?

We'll have to see what the result of the law suit is
"She is being supported by lawyer Peter Todd, who is launching a multi-million-pound action on behalf of about ten teenage girls in the UK, including Ashleigh."

The social workers in the council may not have been aware of all of the risks, abit like the doctors who were addressed by Dr. Diane Harper at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4

"Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, ?If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.?

"Could it have been coincidence that just weeks before Carly first showed signs of illness, she had been injected Cervarix - a similar vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline."

Yes.

Claig - Ms. Robinson in that article, who is extensively quoted, is the Assistant Editor or The Population Research Institute. An anti-abortion pressure group, that may just possibly have an agenda here. The founder's title is Fr.

There is no suggestion that she is a doctor. I would guess there is a reason that this story in a small circulation, local conservative paper wasn't picked up, and it's not conspiracy.

Such a long thread that I don't have time to read all 13 pages but responding to the comment that vaccine not necessary as condoms could provide protection instead.

Who on earth uses condoms all their reproductive life? Absolutely agree that teenagers should have this message constantly repeated to combat STIs, but they aren't going to use them forever. what when these teenage girls get older, want children and stop using protection? Suggesting condoms will prevent cervical cancer is unrealistic as most people in long term relationships stop using them.

Not sure how far parents rights to prevent daughters having the vaccine in schools should extend. However, perhaps girls should be told of their right to have the vaccine at the docs surgery in confidence. After all they can often be prescribed the pill before the age of 16 with their parents none the wiser.

good point, I agree about that. That's why I didn't quote Ms. Robinson's first quote. I meant to highlight the fact that the doctors were having doubts.

"She is being supported by lawyer Peter Todd, who is launching a multi-million-pound action on behalf of about ten teenage girls in the UK, including Ashleigh."

He specialises in vaccine claims. We'll see.

this just goes to show that, sadly, some people get ill. For example, blaming anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis on a vaccine is a real reach: sadly, it'll probably turn out that the girl has a slow-developing tumour that will be found when it reaches a detectable size.

" After all they can often be prescribed the pill before the age of 16 with their parents none the wiser."

Which is overall a bad thing, as things like a family history of thrombosis are significant contra-indications that the child may will now know about. That's the reason I would always regard communicating with my daughters (my elder is now 14, so this is a live issue) as better than ending up with them going behind my back. I'd rather they weren't sexually active, but if they have to be, I'd rather they knew the family medical history before taking hormonal contraceptives. I'm sure we can all think of people who have had bad outcomes from that sort of thing.

Yes tokyo, I do agree with you about the family history. it would be so much better if parents and teenagers could talk openly about such things. Alas, as we know, in many families people just don't feel comfortable about this and it doesn't happen. Needs a bit of a culture change but will always be a sticky issue.
perhaps any people who think that having a jab will suddenly make their daughters promiscuous and less likely to take precautions would be better off just having a good talk to them, even if they find it a bit embarrassing, than denying them a vaccine that could prevent a terminal illness.

"Doctors have since told the Brennans their daughter has anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, where amino acids in the body attack the immune system. 'I believe the only thing that could be responsible for Paige's illness is the cancer jab,' says Margaret.
'Vaccines can cause auto-immune problems. The hospital doctors also admit it could be the vaccine.'"

Here is another case of swelling of the brain and seizures, closely after taking Cervarix.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6257810/Parents-of-brain-damaged-teenager-blame-cervical-cancer-jab.html

Maybe it was just coincidence?

Claig - unless you have got figures for how many teenagers had weird stuff happen without the vaccine, and how many with, you haven't got shit.

Top 10 UK cancer rates according to National Statistics

"The hospital doctors also admit it could be the vaccine"

So she says. And it's hard to see how they'd know. It's an incredibly rare condition.

In the second case you cite, epilepsy starting in the years following puberty is not uncommon. If you do a lot of vaccination, some will have fits that start around the same time (similar to MMR: autism starts to display signs at around the time of the MMR vaccination is given). The question is if the rate is higher than amongst unvaccinated cohorts, or (as a rough cross-check for most conditions amongst boys of the same cohort. There's no evidence it is. So yes, it probably is co-incidence.

This is how vaccine scares start. People start with an a priori assumption it's dangerous. They then book anything that is diagnosed over the next few months to the vaccine. It's understandable, but it proves absolutely nothing unless there's a rise in the rate. There's no way to tell if the cited cases wouldn't have happened had they not been vaccinated, and as the rates aren't increasing, they probably would have. Humans are very good at spotting patterns that aren't there.

@varicoseveined, I can't find the rates by sex and age for the UK in an immediately useful form, and I am not in the mood to do the graphs myself from the raw data. Note from this that amongst women under 45, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer, after breast cancer. Unless you think Canada 1987--1996 is wildly unlike the UK today, that strikes me as a pretty good reason to vaccinate: I think my unborn grandchildren will thank me.

Someone asked way up the thread about the age of consent for surgery. dd jointly consented to surgery at 12 and has done ever since (twice more; 1 further ortho, 1 heart). The consent was joint but the balance was in her favour, that is, she pretty much got the final say, which is in line with the consent form in the OP.

She hasn't yet had this vax, we will be discussing it again with the GP next week.

Lightshines, I've sat and read the whole thread because tonight is a crap evening in our house. Now I've namechanged for obvious reasons.

While you've been debating the symantecs of the right or wrongness of consent, my 21 year old DSD has been told that her cancer is back.

She was told eight weeks ago she had cervical cancer. Seven weeks ago she had an op and the doctors said they thought they'd caught it in time. Now, only weeks later, it seems they were wrong. Next is a full hysterectomy. But far worse is the unspoken fear of what might happen, this sort of nameless horror that everyone is trying hard to pretend doesn't exist.

All I can say is for Christ's sake, stop being a prat. Just get your daughter vaccinated if you don't want to go through this. Very un-Mumsnet calling people names I know, but get a grip, this isn't some theoretical academic exercise. It's awful.

"but from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them." - or they could all have been thinking "mad woman - when's lunch??"

I want to know why this vaccine is being offered when it has never been tested on young girls only much older adults. Also there's not enough info on long term health risks with this vaccine.

Darts - I don't know the ins and outs of the testing programme but - how long are we supposed to wait to offer the vaccine? 10 years? 20?30?

I think dart's point is more around it whether or not it was tested on it's target group rather than the length time it is effective for.

Strugglingtounderstand - so sorry to hear about your DSD. Un-MN hugs and everything crossed for her surgery, bless her. I seriously hope your perspective makes the OP think hard about the reality of cervical cancer.