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?

Claig - that is not a prediction. That is saying 'current planning rates'. When dealing with a potential disaster you don't just deal with the most likely case. Risk is made up of two factors. The chance of an event and the severity of the consequences. You have to plan for a worse case than you think is likely, as the consequences if you are unlucky are severe enough that you can't risk it.

This is why some critical systems have triple redundancy, nuclear weapons need two keys etc.

yes of course it could be. It is my opinion that some of the vaccines are not safe, but I could be wrong.

Here's why I think vaccination is a good idea. I've had cervical cancer, even after going regularly for smear tests. It's no fun at all, and I am very lucky to be here. Having cancer has robbed me of the opportunity to have my own daughters. If I had a daughter, I would recommned vaccination, along with regular smear tests since nobody is claiming the vaccine will eliminate all CC risk. To me this is as sensible as any mum saying to her daughter "If you decide to smoke, I can't guarantee you'll get lung cancer, but it's not going to do you any good." Most responsible parents take children to the the dentist, make them wear seat belts (even though that does not prevent all road deaths) and sensibly manage sun exposure. Doctors are developing a good and improving understanding of the risk factors for cancer - and having the vaccine will reduce the risk. Yes, the vaccine itself is not risk free but life is about assessing risk and measuring relative risk. I don't particularly want this post to be a suffer-fest, but it is important to remember that behind the statistics and the Ben-bashing, there's a horrible illness, that still KILLS far too many young women, who are often mothers themselves. I still don't like the fact that I had to go into a hospice as a patient while still in my 30s, or had to make the phone call to tell my parents I had cancer, or think about the songs for my own funeral, or watch my husband being put through Hell as he watched me go through it.

I loathe the fact that bashing big pharma is so widespread yet many of the people who do so are happy to take advantage of modern medicine when it really counts, if there is an emergency or their children are ill. I dont' think drug companies are lovely, but neither do I think that homeopathic woo is going to save the planet. And for the Daily Mail readers, your paper is not a medical journal.

The Coalition, I take your word for it. You know more about statistics than me.

Claig - I disagree. I think you have to much faith in medical statistics. Where they are used to make prediction, you are expecting guarantees where none are possible. All they do is provide a way of deciding which of several options presents the least risk.

When these don't live up to your false expectations you reject the whole lot as junk - when in fact they have done just what they set out to do.

Claig - Considering you spend a lot of time talking about and quoting stats - maybe an evening class?

yes maybe they should quote the statistics with a confidence interval or whatever it is, long time ago since I studied stats.

"nuclear weapons need two keys"

You'd like to think. There's a history of permissive action links here. You're thinking of two keys on missile launch: the security of the warheads is a whole other problem.

It's too boring, I prefer politics

You don't seem to think it's boring when you quote them - I thought you were suspicious of accepting authority at face value?

I most certainly am . I must admit, I always found probability and statistics the most interesting aspects of maths.

lighten up Pixie

I am very partial to TheCoalition. We often disagree (she is often wrong) but it is very amicable.

My DS isn't in a position to give informed consent (he's a toddler!) but that's no reason not to give him a vaccine. Why is it any different for your daughter?

"Why is it any different for your daughter?"

Because reality, ethics and courts don't agree. There have been several cases of where young people with terminal or probably terminal diagnoses have wanted to have palliative care, while their parents have wanted yet more operations/chemo/etc with diminishing chances of success. There have been several cases in which children with long-term, life-limiting conditions have asked for DNR notices. And for each of these cases, there is probably another case with the roles reversed.

In the world of Gillick, a parent can consent on behalf of a child and then have the procedure carried out by force, or alternatively can without the procedure with the child unable to act. In reality, no doctor is going to perform a procedure on a resisting 15 year old, nor are they going to withhold potentially beneficial treatment from a 15 year old because their mother says so. The question is, does that apply at 14, 13, 12, 11...?

And hence Gillick/Axon competence, for exigent circumstances, and assorted court hearings on a case-by-case basis where there's more time. There may be many interests: the parents, the child, the doctors, the court of protection, social services, etc, etc. The current rule of thumb is, I believe, that to invoke Gillick/Axon competence below 12 is potentially career-ending, and to deny it from 15 onwards is little better. The debate is 12 to 14, which unfortunately is (a) bang in the middle of HPV and (b) the sort of age where parents most struggle with the idea that their girls are becoming women (my daughters are 12 and 14).

scuttlebutter - I'm really, really sorry to hear you have been/are going through that :( How are you now?

Wow , Lights had a hard time on here with the persistant questioning !

Fwiw , my daughter wont be having the vaccine either , is it really so unusual to choose not to vaccinate ? And i too would also be a little concerned about the forms re consent.

I chose for my older dd not to have one ( the one in your arm in high school ). The consent form asked for reasons which i gave. I felt it unecessary and said so , cue a phone call from the nurse quoting all sorts of statistics and other stuff. I politeley listened and maintained that No, i didnt want her to have it.

Guess what , come vac day they " lost " the form and she was questioned repeatedly as to why she didnt want to have it. Que another call from the nurse . Half an hour later a call from the school docter , asking was there any particular reason i didnt want her seen by a docter ?

A few months later it was scrapped , but obviously i was deemed too stupid to be able to make a decision about it. For now , mine wont be having this new jab , although i may change my mind over the next year. Sureley thats not quite so shocking ?

I really don't understand this thread. You don't think she's mature enough to give consent but feel that it should be her decision (when you feel she is mature enough) so you won't give your consent.

That's possibly the nuttiest thing I've ever read on here. You're not against her being vaccinated but won't let her have it now- when it has the best chance of working because she's not sexually active- because she's not mature enough to weigh up the moral and ethical pros and cons??!!?!???Seriously? I really hope you decide she's mature enough to give informed consent before she decides she's mature enough for sex.

Dignified, really? I think that it's the BCG you're referring to and it was scrapped as TB has fallen to such low levels in UK- due to immunisation- that it's no longer needed.

"A few months later it was scrapped , but obviously i was deemed too stupid to be able to make a decision about it. For now , mine wont be having this new jab , although i may change my mind over the next year. Sureley thats not quite so shocking ?"

Yes, it is shocking. Cervical cancer is something that is a very clear and serious risk to women.

You seriously think that your decision not to allow your daughter to have an immunisation that is no longer given as standard was in some way justified because it's no longer given as standard!!! It's a mark of the success of the program that it doesn't need to be given as standard anymore. A serious disease is no longer so prevalent that it poses a high threat to people in the UK. If you don't understand that maybe you can't give informed consent.

I understand parents whose children have suffered extreme reactions to immunisations in the past being wary but to not vaccinate for no good reason/concerns and be proud of the fact?

You seriously think that your decision not to allow your daughter to have an immunisation that is no longer given as standard was in some way justified because it's no longer given as standard!!! It's a mark of the success of the program that it doesn't need to be given as standard anymore. A serious disease is no longer so prevalent that it poses a high threat to people in the UK. If you don't understand that maybe you can't give informed consent.

Umm i understood perfectly thanks , which is why i made the decision for her not to have it. Im perfectly capable of doing my own research and considering it was scrapped just months later it seems the goverment and all their health advisers also shared the same veiw . What is it you think i didnt understand ?

Im not sure why youve decided that ive chosen not to vaccinate " for no good reason " as you do not know what my reasons are . And no , im not " proud " of it and neither am i ashamed , its just a fact.

....that's if it is of actual benefit. Will take a long time to find out whether it is successful as the condition/ cancer could occur years down the road. And of course, they have no idea on the correct dosage yet, how many boosters will be needed. Or in fact, if it's as safe as they say. Or more effective in preventing cervical cancer than the traditional regular examinations. Perhaps it is the number of unknowns making the OP think that if most adults can't find the answers, neither will a child. Perhaps it is a mistrust of drugs companies known to hide factual medical research. That is if they do enough research, which, sadly, they don't, in the medium or long term.
I'm not entirely anti-vac myself BTW, just providing a few potential reasons for not giving consent.

Apologies - my crashing computer means that my post is about 550 too late!
For what it's worth, I have really enjoyed reading the posts and they have greatly added/confirmed my decision to NOT to encourage my DC have this vaccine when they are old enough.
I am not anti vaccine at all, DCs are on an alternative schedule, but having pretty much all of them. But having lived in the states - atchooooooo - oh, poor darling, take tamiflu immediately, here's a prescription - I just am cautious about this incessant need to pump our children full of chemicals. Before I am flambéed, I think it is GOOD to be sceptical about the big pharmas - for goodness sake, they are in it for money, not care. Look at the fact they continued to supply jabs containing mercury when they knew it was harmful. What is the proof for flu vaccinations actually being worth the strain on the immune system? In case you MIGHT get sick?
Vaccs have an important place in society, but this vaccine has NOT convinced me. Perhaps In a few years when it has more research I will think about it. I sympathize with those who have either had cervical cancer or are close to someone who has it, but this vaccine, had it been on offer for that person, may well not have prevented their illness.