AIBU to think that father may have taken this to court to get his own back on ex-wife

[LoveSewingBee]

Court has decided that two girls will be given MMR jab against their own wishes and against wishes of their mother

I am all for vaccinating, but surely this will be very traumatic especially for the vegan girl. I really think that it is wrong what their father has done here and this is being done to get his own back on his ex.

What do you think?

this isnt a pro vax debate imo

im pro vax but also pro choice re our own bodies. the girls should not be forced into this.

pissed off 15 year old? I would never have spoken to my father ever again if he forced me to have a needle atthat age

The 15 year old has been assessed as not having the competency with regard to making this particular decision, that means she does not fit the criteria to be making the decision for herself.

As unpalatable as it sounds that means its down to the parents to actually parent her.

I think a 15 year old has the capacity to decide for themselves whether they want any medical/treatment or intervention. I think it's an appalling decision. Forced vaccination? Not in anyone's interest.

I haven't vaccinated my younger children because of what happened to my eldest but I already talk about it with my 11 year old (pros & cons) & if he came to me at 15 & said he wanted to be vaccinated I would arrange it for him (even though I do not think it in his best interests) because at 15 he has capacity.

Likewise if he was advised to have medical treatment but didn't want it then at 15 I would listen to him. (And his younger brother when older as well).

A father forcing a child to undergo any procedure when they are old enough to actively decide against is pretty appalling.

I would expect this decision in a younger case but am pretty shocked a 15 year old's opinion wasn't listened to.

Wrt 'not having capacity for this decision' almost seems to be saying there is only one acceptable view of vaccinations (I bet if she'd wanted it & had been at court about that she would have been deemed to have capacity & therefore allowed to decide to have it).

Wonder what will happen if she kicks and screams and refuses the injection. Are medical staff actually going up forcibly inject her? Or will they deem her to be non-consenting?

I've worked with children not capable of giving consent (that was given by parents) but had children shown in their actions that they were not consenting I wouldn't have continued with what I was doing (in one case didn't).

I think capacity doesn't mean only being allowed to make ''correct" decisions.

He's looking out for their health. He cares about his children. They should have had the mmr years ago but were put off by the idiotic scaremongering.

Where do you get off accusing him of doing it to get back at his wife? Its stereotypical, its offensive to seperated fathers as a group. Maybe she wouldn't let them have it when they should have done to get at him?

Probably both of them just think that they are doing the best for their children. It says more about you that you would automatically assume such other purposes, its small minded and judgemental.

This is an NHS publication about consent
www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/aboutnhsservices/documents/consent_%20aguideforparentsdh_4117353.pdf

Think it's a bit dodgy suggesting someone a few months off their 16th birthday can't make her own decision.

Tbh if she kicks & screams & shows non-consent I would be stunned if any medical professionals agreed to give it anyway. They have always been very reluctant to hold down a kicking screaming non-compliant ds1, even for necessary treatment (such as x ray for potentially broken ankle - that was left untreated in the end because they couldn't work out how to do it in a way that he would consent to).

Its not about if she made a correct decision or not.

She did not have the capacity to for-fill the criteria required to demonstrate she had made an actual decision rather than was just parroting one parents viewpoints and had not looked at the bigger picture.

People can make what other people consider to be the wrong decision and the courts often order in favour of no medical treatment.

Saintly, lots of over 18 year olds are deemed to be unable to give consent for medical treatment.

Its not just decided on age alone

My point is that for vaccinations only the 'pro' argument is accepted as demonstrating capacity. Look at this thread 'mentioning disease & death from measles with no mention of permanent disability from vaccination (it happens).

Also a bit odd that they would override her vegan objections (considering they don't override religious objections eg to pork).

Sockreturning - not unless they come under the mental capacity act. At 16 children, if NT are deemed capable of consenting & parental consent is not sought (unless it's someone like ds1 who will never be capable of consent).

I don't think these girls should be vaccinated against their wishes. It is a strange case. It sounds like two divorced parents playing a power game.

Here - from the gmc www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_involving_children_and_young_people.asp 'at 16 a young person can be presumed to have capacity'

That's unless they have a learning disability in which case the mental capacity act comes into play.

There's no indication that this is the care here - if it were it would be an easier case.

Saintly she's 15 not 16

This is a situation caused by 2 parents who obviously lack the common decency of communicating on important issues regarding their DCs.

Looking at the article I think the right judgement has been made. 11 and 15 are not good ages to be making decisions that may inadvertently affect their future well-being. As a teenager tends to follow a cause that they wholeheartedly believe in 1 week and another the next week.... it is all part of maturing.

The main focus in the thread has been on Measles a nasty illness that can have horrific consequences, but so can Mumps (in males) and rubella in females, as if they contract it through pregnancy it can cause deafness and blindness in their baby.

For those of you that are slating the judgement would you be doing the same if it were a 11 or 15 year old needing a blood transfusion to survive but the parents were arguing due to religious beliefs?

^The welfare officer said both children had been strongly influenced by their mother, who was very anxious about the jab.

Mrs Justice Theis decided that it was in the best interests of the children that they were vaccinated.

"I am aware that this is against the girls' wishes but that that it is not the only factor," she wrote. "The court also has to consider their level of understanding of the issues involved and what factors have influenced their views. I do not consider there is a balanced level of understanding by them of the issues involved."^

Fair play to her for doing the right thing.

babybarrister, that is an interesting and reassuring reference for the judge from (I assume) professional knowledge of her. Thanks.

The thing is though, what are they going to do if both girls refuse to be vaccinated? Are they actually going to pull them in the room kicking and screaming, hold them down and jab a needle in their arm? Because I think they'd be on very dodgy grounds if they did, couldn't they be done for assault, holding someone against their will etc?

Diamchlo

The blood transfusion is a totally different scenario.
I have referred in all my posts to this situation being a non life saving situation.

I agree with your opening point totally . The fact that two parents can let this situation to this point is utterly stupid. Any suggestion that either are acting for the good of the children is nonsense.

However she reached this point, a 15 year old girl is going to be forced to have a procedure she doesn't want. Awful.
Everyone involved should be ashamed.

Actually she probably isn't. If you read the article it says so.
And it sounds like its her mother that doesn't want it. If the girl had a strongly held well thought out opinion it would have been presented at court.
She didn't.