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?

Coalition- personal consent, yes.

Parental consent may be overriden if it is in the child's best interests.

If a 12 year old is considered old enough to make decisions regarding her health etc then why do we routinely make decisions for them.

If you go along that thinking then at 12 they are old enough to decide for themselves

• to have sex
• to drink alcohol
• to smoke
• to drive
• to vote

Since when is a 12 year old, old enough to make these decisions??

This is not about whether to vaccinate or not, it's about parental rights v the childs rights to make decisions and at 12 - IMO they are too young to make any of these decisions.

" I am suggesting that you cannot just clean your teeth you need regular dental screening too in order to stop you needing the odd cap in your 50's"

My brother hasn't been to the dentist in thirty years. But let's not do fluoridated water now, eh?

"The number of so called accidental pregnancies you read about on MN alone is cause for concern that so many people still aren't using condoms and the resulting baby is almost the least of our worries."

So you accept that even without HPV vaccines, people aren't using condoms sufficiently? How will preventing your daughter having the HPV vaccine improve this?

LightShinesInTheDarkness
So you must have a medical reason then, surely ?
I have three daughters, if offered it today they would have the vaccination, is there something you feel I should know ?

We are suggesting that you may be a loon because we cannot think of a non-loony reason to insist that your DD not have the vaccine - please go ahead and enlighten us.

I'm not part of the vast majority. I didn't consent to DD1 having the vaccine and as the adult and parent I don't give a stuff what anyone else - DD included - has to say, I pull rank on this one. I agree with ChippingIn's post of 11.11am.

FWIW, LightShinesInTheDarkness, when I looked at the part of the consent form which asked for my reason for deciding against the vaccination I nearly just drew a broad black line across it as imo it has sod all to do with anyone else.

Then I thought, hang on, you have bloody good reason for rejecting this, so tell them so! I don't think for one moment that my reasons will be taken into account the next time the powers that be attempt to foist something of this kind upon the population though.

"This is not about whether to vaccinate or not, it's about parental rights v the childs rights to make decisions and at 12 - IMO they are too young to make any of these decisions."

So get some friends together, and try to re-fight Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority (mother's right to prevent treatment) and The Queen On The Application Of Sue Axon v The Secretary Of State For Health (mother's right to know about treatment). Good luck. You'll need it.

Commentary on the current position here

tokyonambu - you are preaching to the converted mine will have all vaccinations offered, with or without their consent.
But I worry about reduced screening and false sense of security.

"you have bloody good reason for rejecting this, so tell them so!"

Care to tell us?

The risks of all those things (with the possible exception of voting - unless they got their little hands caught in the ballot box or something) are obvious, ChippingIn.

The risks associated with this vaccine are not.

"It was the principle of the consent - it could be consent for riding a bike, eating jelly babies or using a biro."

Imo the years between 11 and 18 are the years where you gradually pass the control of consent over into the hands of your child. Not all in one go, but gradually. They need to be used to it by the time they get to 18.

A parent should not be deciding about biros or jelly babies for a 12yo (unless there is a very good reason, such as a life-threatening biro or jelly baby allergy); they need to gradually make their own decisions. Claiming that as a parent you can make absolutely every decision for a 12yo would be unrealistic to say the least. But also wrong.

The school recognises that this is an age where consent issues are likely to be shared between parent and child.

Not every parent will draw the line in the same place: some will want to retain more influence, some less. But I think it is eminently reasonable of the school to admit that at this age, most parents discuss things and decide things together with their offspring.

Naturally, a vaccination is a more serious matter- which is why I think your biro and jelly baby analogy is bizarre.

The argument that your dd cannot make a balanced decision because the school only presents one viewpoint also seems odd. So why aren't you helping your dd to do the research? If she had all the material, surely she would be in a better position?

"But I worry about reduced screening and false sense of security."

yeah, risk homeostatis is a problem (people drive carelessly with seatbelts and ABS, ride bikes badly with helmets, etc). But in this case I worry less, because if pregnancy and immediately nasty STDs don't encourage safe sex, a somewhat raised chance of a disease in 20 years' time isn't going to. The reduced screening thing is a problem, and were this something that affected men I'd worry more, but as things stand it appears women are more likely to have a pro-active relationship with their doctor and rates of screening takeup are higher.

Can you not see, OP, that if your concern is not based on the worry that your daughter will, post-vaccine, think "hey, should i have underage sex? well, I won't get cervical cancer, so I might as well" then you have knowledge that the rest of us don't?

So either your concern IS based on that scenario, in which case you are an irrational loon, or your concern is based on something substantive, and we would like to benefit from that knowledge because, again, we have daughters too.

Sorry if this sounds overly simplistic LightShines but why not just discuss it fully with her yourself beforehand to ensure she understands the issues?

If a Jehovah's Witness parent refuses a blood transfusion for their child, then the hospital may hold an emergency court and overrule their decision.

How exactly is this different? Cervical cancer is a killer

slightlyjaded and tortoiseonthehalfshell - thank you for explaining why I have caused such conflict, that is really helpful.

but - what you are all saying is that it is wrong of me to withold consent simply because we feel that she should decide for herself. I need to decide she should have the vaccine because she cannot decide.

and MNers in general feel that my decision should be to go ahead.

Vallhala Are you prepared to shared your reasons with us ?

weblette, LightShines seems to be a tad selective with what she is answering, this may be one of those questions that was glossed over because she couldn't give a sensible answer.

The number of so called accidental pregnancies you read about on MN are generally in the context of a marriage or other stable monogamous relationship, though. I don't think it's unreasonable not to use condoms in that situation (assuming that you are doing something else about contraception or are happy with the likelihood of a baby).

Well give us your reason for refusal then, op. This is anonymous forum. Your privacy remains intact. You are coming across as most likely having spurious reasons for refusal that you are rightly ashamed to admit to. Perhaps your dd is profoundly disabled, fair enough. That might be a very good reason to refuse. Perhaps she has an underlying health condition that makes the vaccine more dangerous for her. Again, fair enough. Your refusal to provide the whole story is doing you no favours on this thread.

ChippingIn Wed 15-Sep-10 12:35:14
"If a 12 year old is considered old enough to make decisions regarding her health etc then why do we routinely make decisions for them.

If you go along that thinking then at 12 they are old enough to decide for themselves

• to have sex
• to drink alcohol
• to smoke
• to drive
• to vote

Since when is a 12 year old, old enough to make these decisions??"

Apart from the difficulties of getting to the ballot box or getting her hands on a car, if my dd has refrained from all the above (as I am confident that she has), it has got to be partly her decision, because she understands the strong arguments against it. I can't police her every single moment of the day. I am sure she could get hold of cigarettes, or even alcohol, if she tried hard enough. There are bound to be temptations. If she still decides not to try smoking, it is because she understands the issues. Merely saying "I forbid you" would be likely to be far less effective than her having thought through the problems of addictions and possible lung cancer, or understanding the dangerous effects of alcohol on a young body. It also helps that she understands what the laws of society are, and why they are in place, and that her parents are equally bound by those.

Once again, LightShines, do you no longer believe we should protect our daughters? Your previous statement on the matter seemed to imply you were happy to make choices for your DD based on best interests. I'd be interested to know why you have backpeddled on this.

Well DD wants the jab. She is due to get it next year. So thankfully it won't be an issue for us.

Who here smoked, drank and had sex before they were meant to? /raises hand

"what you are all saying is that it is wrong of me to withold consent simply because we feel that she should decide for herself."

You may well decide to all sit down at home, discuss the matter rationally, and fill the form in accordingly. But to withhold consent, on the grounds you think that not merely should your daughter decide, but should also then engage in a complex dispute with the school about Gillick/Axon competence (remember, if the nurse decides your daughter isn't Gillick/Axon competent, she won't be getting the vaccination without your consent whatever she says) is simply chickening out of taking a decision.

My daughter, who attends a school with a high Muslim population many of whom want to be doctors and are reasonably clued up, says that there were a few children who had the vaccination on a Gillick/Axon basis. But I suspect that no-one was terribly happy about it, least of all the nurse with the needle in her hand. It's her career on the line (see paragraph 155 of the Axon judgement).