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?

Jellie I could have written your post. I'm in the US and I'm already under pressure from DD's doctor to give her the flu jab - I didn't know the flu jab strained the immune system. I will probably give it, though.
Yes, the over-prescribing here in the US of all medications is horrendous. Like you, I'm not anti-vaccine but I am sceptical about the motivation on occasions for these vaccines.
(I wish I could have photographed the faces of the dental receptionists when I told them that I'd had 4 wisdom teeth out in the UK - fully conscious with a couple of paracetemol afterwards. My DS had the standard sedation and a bucket of Vicodin...)

"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."

Narkypuffin that's what I was trying to say.

It makes no sense.

BCG is still standard in areas of high incidence such as London.

Fair enough on the BCG Dignified.

I know that in the US there's serious over vaccination. Flu Jabs here are for the elderly, those with conditions that make them more vunerable and health care professionals.

I have sympathy for those who believe that the risk of things like the MMR vs the chances their child will be seriously ill don't add up.

The HPV vaccination is a special case in that it is a time sensitive jab for something that a huge risk to women. the HPV virus is responsible for nearly all cervical cancer. If you decide not to vaccinate the chances are that your daughter will have sex without being protected and by then it is too late.

The HPV vaccine might not protect completely but I'd take 70% when it is a lethal disease.

I know TCNY. I asked DH to get a booster as he spent so much time on the tube- confined space, stale air.

Narky , so far i have just nosed around at the drug trials and general information and at the moment i dont think theres enough information to decide.
Before i commited to making a decsion id want more information , i may have misunderstood some of the points below as i am not a pharmacist , but these are some of the things that id want more information about before making a decision..

There apears to have been no long term studies done on the effects on fertility , although there has been studies on rats.

Only 250 9 year olds were tested , of course they didnt become infected with hpv. Neither did any of the other young children , and it seems the follow up was only for 4 years.

20,000 women / girls were tested , some of these would not be sexually active due to their age as above. But who were these women ? Did they have long term partners ? Is there evidence to show that they WERE infected with hpv during this trial ?

Its not known if Gardasil is passed through breast milk ( why not ?)

Theres loads more that concerns me but the main one of course is that there has been no long term study done on the impact on fertility , only on fertility in rats. Ive got lots of time to decide but at the moment i would be reluctant to vaccinate until there is more information.

Its not known if Gardasil is passed through breast milk ( why not ?)

It's not known because ethically they cannot carry out a human trial (would you be willing to injected with it whilst still bf ?) and that is what is required to be granted a license.

can a 12yo even get their EARS PIERCED without a parent present to consent? can they get a tatoo? I know an 11yo who had their ears done in the holidays, with parental consent, who has moaned and whinged and cried about having to bathe and turn her studs - she has taken them out and let the hole seal!

I think while SOME 12 yo MAY be old enough to weigh up the facts and take on board a decision about the vaccination, many are NOT capable

I agree SOME teachers/nurses MAY try to put pressure on the child by asking do they know WHY the parents have decided to go against etc

"Its not known if Gardasil is passed through breast milk ( why not ?)"

Because it almost certainly is (remember, the passing over of immunity via breast milk is one of its benefits) and it almost certainly doesn't matter (why is acquiring partial immunity to something a bad thing?), so there's no pressing need to find out.

dignified - Why would Gardasil be given to someone who was breastfeeding? Aren't they kind of past the point where it would make a difference then?

If there was a reason to vaccinate them you would wait until after they were vaccinated.

Re breastfeeding , what are the effects on a newborn if it is passed on ? Its not as if teenagers never get pregnant !

I don't know many breastfeeding Y8s tbh. All the more reason to give the vaccination at 12/13. IMO.

Chipping, thank you. I have passed the five year milestone which is what cancer survivors all aim for as being a key one - after that you generally don't need to go for checkups etc. Still have some permanent effects - but that's better than the alternative!

For those worried about fertility, I'd just like to remind you that cervical cancer unless caught at the very earliest stages, will lead to a hysterectomy - guaranteed to affect your ability to have babies.

dignified - you wouldn't give a pregnant or breastfeeding teenager Gardasil.

I realise that Coalition , what im pondering is the effects when a girl becomes pregnant after having the vaccine.

How long after?

Any time i suppose.

Well Gardasil is going to be out of your body in a week or so.

I think to refuse a vaccine than can in effect virtually eradicate cervical cancer is totally beyong comprehension.

We are not huge fans of vaccines and we certainly do not have flu jabs etc but cervical cancer is easy to prevent with this vaccine, is one of the most common female cancers and I will most certainly be advising my dd to have it when of appropriate age. Arguments that it encourages early sexual experimentation are ridiculous.

There are not significant numbers of 12 year olds getting pregnant, so think the BF question is redundant. I believe it should be part of usual early immunisations at pre school age to avoid all these arguments/knee jerk reactions/moral panics.

I would personally make an official complaint about the wording on the consent form. The NHS really needs to change its attitude towards its 'customers'. It needs to explain why 'vaccination may still be given'. I think if I were in this position, I would refuse consent on the basis that the vaccine could be given under duress, and if that were to happen, a complaint would be made to the police against any healthcare or teaching 'professionals' involved.

When the rubella jab was a separate one, it was given to girls between the ages of 10-13 (I remember getting it at school aged 10).

I wonder why it was that age group that was targetted?

What is it that makes the Gillick and Axon judgements into windmills that every "my rights as a parent" Don Juan wants to tilt at?

The wording is not saying the treatment can be given by force. The wording is merely reminding you that a health care professional can, under specified circumstances, take the child's consent (or lack of consent) as overriding the parent's lack of consent (or consent). Go ahead: make a complaint. Both the RHA and the police probably have a pile of copies of "The Queen On The Application Of Sue Axon v The Secretary Of State For Health (The Family Planning Association: intervening) [2006] EWCA 37 (Admin)" to send out to people to try to stop the windmill from hitting their head, but just case they don't, there is a summary here and the full case is here.

There is absolutely no way that the Gillick or the Axon judgements are going to be overturned. If you want to be certain that your child is going to follow your advice, you'd better be persuasive and engaging, because as they get older, they'll be able to get their own medical advice. That the school nurse will consider Gillick/Axon competence is hardly news, and if s/he won't, your GP will. And when the catch-up round comes around at 15 or 16, they won't even seek parental consent, and may not even bother telling you.

Stop posturing about "official complaints": either you can engage your daughters' agreement, or she can act without your consent.

missmoopy- they aren't even claiming it will eradicate it, only 70% of thge cases and that's only if the smear uptake remains as high as it is.

Tokyo- even form your own reference it shows that you overestimated the prevalence of cervical cancer by 10 times. CIN isn't cancer.

Only 1 in 136 women will get cervical in thier lifetime, which somewhat weakens the argument for this vaccine compared to others which had much higher incidence rates.