Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be worried about this consent form?

542 replies

LightShinesInTheDarkness · 15/09/2010 10:07

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?

OP posts:
musicmadness · 15/09/2010 13:28

This is only a personal point of view but this is what happened in my school (I got the HPV vaccine in the catchup program - against my parents wishes but I was 17 so it definitely wasn't their decision any more):

For all sixth formers I don't think they even asked the parents, they just called us up when taking the register one at a time so we could say whether or not we wanted the vaccine. Anyone who said yes was given the vaccine, anyone who said no wasn't, both groups could change their mind at any time.

For the year 8s the parental consent forms went out and anyone whose parents consented was taken for the vaccine. They were told if they didn't want it to let the teacher know the morning of the vaccine and they wouldn't have to have it. For anyone whose parents didn't give consent they asked the girls if they would like the vaccine or not. Any who said yes were encouraged to discuss it with their parents again but told that their names would be added to the list and they would be given the vaccine as long as they understood the potential side effects etc.

To my knowledge about 10 girls in year 8 went against their parents wishes and were given the vaccine. All of the parents of these girls had objected to the vaccine for "moral reasons" which TBH I just don't understand at all. People abstain from sex/use contreception to avoid pregnancy primarily as teens, not to avoid something that could possibly give you cancer in 20 years time.

BellasFormerFriend · 15/09/2010 13:29

What you mean is "There is no medical reason whatsoever why this vaccine can't be delayed to say 16, as long as you are prepared to bet your daughters life (potentially) on her telling her parents 6 months before she has underage sex" Hmm

Vallhala · 15/09/2010 13:30

The OP hasn't asked whether she is unreasonable in making the decision for her daughter, unreasonable in expecting to be able to do so or unreasonable in not wanting her daughter to have the vaccine. No-one needs to know why she has made this choice. Besides, she has declined to tell you all.

She has merely asked if she is unreasonable to feel concerned that the consent form asked why consent was being denied and whether, in our opinions, she has to give these details.

LightShines, as I indicated before, no, you don't have to give details or answer to anyone. As to whether you have reason to be concerned about being asked, I'd like to think not and that the answers given will only serve for use in "educating" the likes of you and I next time such a vaccination is offered to children. However, tbh, I'm not so sure that it's as innocent as that.

On another note, I am really, really pissed off with the way on which official bodies word letters and forms like this. I can think of at least three which I have received recently where I've been commanded to remit information which I don't have to provide by law. The way these letters have been worded (such as "You must send... " etc) give the impression that the reader has to do as they are told. These bully boy tactics are being used increasingly by authorities who bloody well know they don't have the power to insist upon compliance but who are willing to take devious measures to achieve their objectives.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 15/09/2010 13:31

If I google HPV vaccine the site that comes up is Wikipedia.

38% of British 15-year-olds nearly 4 out of 10 are sexually active (according to IPPR study). Not sure what percentage of their parents "felt" that their daughters wouldn't be sexually active at that point, but it seems like a medical reason for not delaying the vaccination program to 16.

seeker · 15/09/2010 13:32

The only reason people don;t want theri daughters to have this vaccine is because they think that their child's thought processe will go like this.

"I'd really like to have sex, but I'm worried about the HPV virus which could lead to me getting cervical cancer in 20 years time so I'd better not. Oh, wait! I've been vaccinated against that - so there's no reason to wait. Hooray!"

mamatomany · 15/09/2010 13:33

OP, there are real concerns with this vaccine. In the US, Merck who make Gardasil, the first HPV vaccine, had to stop their political lobbying. Some of their tactics have been very underhand - paying cervical cancer survivors to talk to womens' groups but not disclosing their interest. Their promotion has been very aggressive. google HPV vaccine and the site site that comes up is... a Merck site.

Having worked for MSD, you cannot even give a GP a Christmas card for fear of the consequences I find that extremely hard to believe.
We could book a 3 hotel for a presentation but not a 5 hotel for fear of trying to impress and influence.

HalfTermHero · 15/09/2010 13:33

Exactly, Bella. Your children are not your possessions. You cannot have absolute and finite control over their decisions or behaviour. But it takes a sensible and realistic parent to realise this Smile.

nomedoit · 15/09/2010 13:35

BFF, the makers of this vaccine have done a good job of the 'save a life' angle. They ran a 'one less' death ad in the US but had to remove it - because it isn't necessarily true. The vaccine does not protect against all forms of HPV. And some scientists are concerned that other strains of the virus may become more virilent once these vaccinated strains decrease. There is also the teenage "I'm OK" factor - "I don't need to worry about condoms because I've been vaccinated." Whereas all sorts of diseases remain. I would wait and see, that's all.

tortoiseonthehalfshell · 15/09/2010 13:36

Gosh, OP, you are very good at responding but ignoring the questions. kudos.

But this:

it is wrong of me to withold consent simply because we feel that she should decide for herself

is a bit odd, and I think it's what we're picking up on. If that was a valid reason to withhold consent, you'd have withheld consent about every vaccine. Did you?

nomedoit · 15/09/2010 13:39

Mamatomany, if you read the article it's clear. The situation in the US is somewhat different, obviously. This was a company that knew there were lethal side-effects with Vioxx. I don't think enough has been done about the long-term effects - the trials showed some effect on pregnancy which meant that the FDA said Gardasil cannot be used for pregnant women. That suggests to me that there are ways in which this vaccine effects the reproductive system.

HalfTermHero · 15/09/2010 13:40

Also a poster asked this (or a very similar) question earlier:

'would you have refused consent if the vaccine was aimed at preventing any other kind of cancer?'

We are still waiting for the answer to that one too [Hmm].

ChippingIn · 15/09/2010 13:41

To my knowledge about 10 girls in year 8 went against their parents wishes and were given the vaccine. All of the parents of these girls had objected to the vaccine for "moral reasons" which TBH I just don't understand at all.

A parent is not obliged to give the school visiting nurses their childs full medical background. What if the child was allergic to something in the vaccine?

You have to give permission to have your childs face painted and if you don't they wont do it - but hey, it's a vaccination so they can do as they please???

She is a child, it is up to the parent to decide these things, not a visiting HCP that doesn't even know the child.

nomedoit · 15/09/2010 13:42

HTH - yes I would refuse consent if I wasn't satisfied with the testing. I didn't take the swine flu vaccine (rushed out/WHO issues) and neither did several of my nurse friends. Also, I didn't give the swine flu vaccine to my daughter.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 15/09/2010 13:43

I would be very surprised if any trials have been done on pregnant women. There is a reason why there are so few drugs you can take in pregnancy - the ethics of testing on pregnant women.

Vallhala · 15/09/2010 13:44

nomedoit, likewise Cervarix, which is not recommended for use in pregnancy due to insufficient data. It's only recommended to b/f women when the benefits outweigh the risks.

I can't think when thos benefits are likely to occur, maybe someone can enlighten me?

BellasFormerFriend · 15/09/2010 13:44

Ok, about all this "I've been vaccinated so I can have sex" crap being bandied around this thread.

Never, not once even by the most uneducated idiot was I (or I anyone else i am aware of) told "use condoms, they may reduce your risk of cervical cancer" or anything even remotly connected to cervical cancer. Girls simply do not see cervical cancer as connected with sex at all and it is only the hooha blown up by fools around this vaccination that has made it clear that it is connected in anyway.

Girls may think, "I am on the pill, I can have sex" they may think "I am using a condom, I can have sex" they are almost certainly not going to think "I am vaccinated against HPV 45, i can have sex".

Inertia · 15/09/2010 13:45

From what I've understood of the OP's posts, this consent issue seems to be a bit of a catch-22 situation. OP won't give consent because she believes that her daughter should be the one to give consent. However, OP does not believe that her daughter is well- informed enough to give consent, so OP won't give parental consent - isn't this just a circular argument or am I missing something ?

HalfTermHero · 15/09/2010 13:46

Nom- Fair enough. Your grounds for refusal are based on valid grounds ( you are concerned re the safety/effectiveness of a vaccine). Op has not cited this as her ground for refusal though.

nomedoit · 15/09/2010 13:48

Re. Gardasil - it was women who became pregnant shortly afterwards.

"FDA briefing papers noted a small increase in birth defects in the babies of women given the vaccine within 30 days of becoming pregnant over those who took a placebo. The number, while not establishing causality, triggered an FDA recommendation that pregnant women not be vaccinated. "

Merck tested Gardasil in India where there is less regulation. Great company Hmm

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 15/09/2010 13:48

namedoit - WHO issues? Swine Flu vaccine wasn't 'rushed out'.

BellasFormerFriend · 15/09/2010 13:48

Chipping, it is the NHS doing this, they do have access to full records.

tokyonambu · 15/09/2010 13:49

"the trials showed some effect on pregnancy which meant that the FDA said Gardasil cannot be used for pregnant women"

Could you cite the paper? I find it extraordinary that anyone would do any testing whatsoever on a drug that is, pretty much by definition, useless for any woman who has ever been pregnant. Very few drugs are tested on pregnant women, unless there are massive reasons why pregnant women will need it. Most drugs aren't licensed for pregnant women for the same reason they aren't licensed for children: the testing is difficult to do ethically. It doesn't mean there are problems; it means no-one can justify the risk of finding out. Most drugs licensed for pregnant women are legacy products, and pregnant women who need modern drugs (a friend of mine had chemo for breast cancer from 16 weeks of pregnancy onwards) end up having them off-license.

"A parent is not obliged to give the school visiting nurses their childs full medical background. What if the child was allergic to something in the vaccine?"

Good reason to fill the form in saying "No consent, because of allergy to....", then.

"She is a child, it is up to the parent to decide these things"

But the law says different.

ChippingIn · 15/09/2010 13:50

inertia you have it spot on (as far as I can make out anyway). I disagree with the OP - she is the parent, she should make the decision. 12 year olds are not old enough to make this decision. Although half the people on here think they are, whilst not allowing Tabitha to cross the road by herself Hmm.

Blu · 15/09/2010 13:52

Crikey.

DS, aged 6, was able to take part in a very detailed and wide ranging discussion about choices within a course of surgery, and he weighed up the pros and cons with a very sophisticated understanding.

I think it's very empowering to let young people have responsibility..a quality that will stand them on very good stead when it comes to deciding whether to have sex.

nomedoit · 15/09/2010 13:52

TCNY - heck, let's not even get into that one!

My point is that all this is not as clear cut as 'take the vaccine, save your kid's life'.

Neither is it just a public health issue. There is a lot of lobbying by companys who have a financial interest in this and in the case of Merck they have a record for withholding info on Vioxx which killed people. It's also early days to know side-effects.

I'm not against all vaccinations.