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?

You have to find a private GP. I suggest google and the phone book or if you have private medical insurance they might be able to suggest someone. They do it as a one off service - like travel jabs.

Costs - can't remember but think it was £200 ish. Course of three injections and I was told that the course has to be administered by same doctor so if you are thinking of moving not advisable.

In that case then Light could you please link us to some research that indicates that the vaccine isn't effective? Because I don't know of any. If it's out there I'd like to be able to read it.

"If we as adults are undecided about the evidence for and against,"

And, in most cases, incapable of assessing the "evidence" in any meaningful way. The less people know about statistics, the harder they find reading statistical analyses.

Comtessa - there is a slight bit missing from your post ...

Fact: The HPV vaccine is only effective up to the age of around ...

Some NHS GPs will provide the vaccine too.

Light - she states it underneath.

Light - isn't it around 4.5 years?

tokyonanmbu if we tried to base our decisions on statistics etc we'd never leave the house in the morning!!

claricebeansmum - I would guess it was due to a cost/benefit analysis as for all health spending.

sorry - found it, was trying to backtrack

Sorry if this is bad form for bringing up old posts/threads, but I did a quick search on your name LightShines (as I recognised you but couldn't think which thread from) and it threw up a thread you started about Jade Goody. Again, sorry for raising an old issue here, but how can you start a thread like that and object to a vaccine? I simply can't understand that.

Coalition - definitely costs. I guess it was a something is better than nothing approach.

"Fact: The HPV vaccine is only effective up to the age of around ..."

So what? trials www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722205 indicate it's probably close to full effectiveness for 20 years. Past that we don't know. Cervical cancer rates drop sharply with menopause, so it's probably going to provide close to 100% protection for around half of a woman's risk years (assuming first sexual activity to menopause is forty years) and then declining (maybe: we don't know yet) protection for the remaining 20. But it also means that my daughters are pretty much protected from cervical cancer until 2031, so if the medical profession can find some spare time from foisting ineffective and dangerous vaccines on helpless young children for no reason other than money and sadism, the chances are the prognosis of someone with cervical cancer in 2035 is better than in 2015.

Brushing your teeth doesn't stop you needing a cap or two in your fifties. But, hey, it's better than losing all your teeth at twenty.

Nursing Times

"Research has shown that the HPV vaccine?s protection is effective for four-and-a-half years after completing the three dose course. Beyond that, it is not known how long the vaccine?s protection will last."

Can I summarise what I think you are all saying? Seriously, I am getting it straight.

1. That the vast majority of MNers will give consent to the vaccine
2. The vast majority of MNers will encourage their daughters to give consent
3. If you consented but your DD didn't, your DD would not have the vaccination, on the basis that at 12 she can decide for herself.
4. Vice versa, if you did not consent but your DD wanted it, she would have the vaccination, based on the same premise.

"if we tried to base our decisions on statistics etc we'd never leave the house in the morning!!"

What else can you base decisions about vaccination on but statistics? Your choices are asking your doctor (who will rely on statistics), reading the scientific literature (which will contain the statistics) or read some crank websites. What are the other options?

I agree - tokyonambu - parents have every right to ask and be provided with info but that doesn't mean they know how best to use it. Presumably many parents collected info on MMR, then chose the false info over the correct.
Parents don't have total control over everything wrt their children, and (whisper it) don't always know best. I think 12 is old enough to veto a parent's decision about their own health.

"The decision to consent or refuse is legally hers - but at age 12, how can she possibly understand the medical, ethical and moral reasons for and against this new vaccine? I genuinely don't believe she can give informed consent." - WELL YOU'RE THE PARENT!!! and if you don't think she's old enough to understand the issues then you have to make the decision - that's your job! She sure won't thank you if she gets cervical cancer when she's older. I really can't think of a single reason for not giving consent and I wish with all my heart that it had been available when my girls were 12. My best friend has been through the treatment for cervical cancer caused by HPV and it's truly awful. Whatever you think the downside of this vaccination is it can't possibly be as bad as the ilness it's preventing, which is really much more common thatn you would think and that's why money has been spent on the vaccination programme.

lal123 - Yes we would. All kinds of accidents happen at home.

What you have to do is accept that everything involves risk.

People are SPECTACULARLY bad at judging risk and understanding statistics. This is why we need to be taught about them - a job that as a society we don't do very well.

FFS - I remember John Humphries displaying a spectacular misunderstanding of conditional probability on The Today Programme.

Sorry - in a nutshell you are prob not being unreasonable about the form but you a most definately being very unreasonable about the vaccine.

aquestion..if a vaccination against adifferent form of cancer was given at 12,wouldyour decision be different?

""Research has shown that the HPV vaccine?s protection is effective for four-and-a-half years after completing the three dose course. Beyond that, it is not known how long the vaccine?s protection will last.""

Got a date for that? May 2010 research work says twenty years. This is a study on Cervirix, as used by the NHS, not Gardasil.

claricebeansmum - it's the only basis on which we can make these decisions - the NHS isn't a bottomless pit. I wouldn't say it's something is better than nothing - it's this provides the best solution at the best cost.

Sorry, I'm going to say it again because I think my point might have been missed and I'm genuinely curious. OP, I don't understand how you can begin a thread about Jade Goody and say "we must protect our daughters" and then do an about turn on such a serious subject.

(once again, sorry for raising an old thread, see previous post for how I stumbled on it, but this is baffling)

"Brushing your teeth doesn't stop you needing a cap or two in your fifties. But, hey, it's better than losing all your teeth at twenty."

But better education and regular dental screening would be equally effective, with less potential for side effectives or reactions.
Or that feeling of being safe because you've been vaccinated, when actually you aren't protected from the other 30% of virus' or other nasties that a simple condom would protect you from.