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?

In my case measles was a minor rash. In my mum's case it left her deaf in one ear.

My younger sons do know both these outcomes :)

IME the courts would require evidence of understanding when treatment is being requested just as they do when its being refused.

The vast majority of family law court cases involving children perceived to be old enough to have a say will have systems in place designed to detect if a child is expressing there own view or has been coached or is just echoing either parent.

These particular children have been detected as having been coached and echoing they have also not been given the very basic information required to meet the minimum needed to make a choice.

One of their parents has placed them in this position the other has tried to rectify it.

Saintly I have no doubt what so ever that the info you have passed to your children is enough for them to never be in the same position as these children but these children are not as lucky as yours.

Tbh I still think it won't happen - the bbc news report hints at that. The deadline for it being done has passed & there are 'practical difficulties'. It's not difficult to arrange an MMR, so it sounds entirely possible/likely the girls are refusing. Perhaps the father should be the one to hold them down as he's so desperate for them to have it does also demonstrate why this should not have gone to court (although I agree with an earlier poster that it doesn't mean both parents are unreasonable).

If you mean the father has tried to rectify it I don't agree. If he disagreed with their decision it would have been better to explain to the girls why he felt they had made the wrong decision, not force them to his way of thinking through the use of the courts. Good luck to him & his future relationship with his girls if he thinks he can force then to think the same way as him.

I feel for the girls.

Have to say I'm very surprised at the courts decision. I can't believe that the 15yo doesn't have Gillick competence, very surprised. I'm suspicious they've decided that as her choice isn't a mainstream choice. So they've used every opportunity they can to try and trip her up.

If she's vegan she has a good point about not wanting an animal based vaccine. Then to say she hasn't thought about if medication she may need if she were ill has animal contents is just silly.

If I were vegan I wouldn't take stuff I didn't feel I needed that had animal content. But if I was seriously ill my ethical objection would go out the window if it was life saving stuff. I imagine a lot of vegetarians would feel the same.

Surely if they pin her down to have it she can sue for assault?

I'm sure if she were pregnant and wanted an abortion she'd be deemed to be competent to make that decision.

My 12yo was the one who was asked at school whether she consented for her recent HPV. I didn't have to sign a consent. I just got a letter saying my dd has agreed to have this vaccine.

The world health organisation, and others, are trying to eradicate measles.

800,000 children die a year from measles, half in Africa.

Vaccination isn't just about your own children.

Yes viva - I agree & what I said on the other thread. There is no 'treatment' for measles mumps or rubella anyway. Unless they meant antibiotics for secondary infections, or iv vitamin A for measles (although whether it's any use in well nourished individuals is not clear). Perhaps they meant paracetamol.

Well I really can't imagine any hcp or court insisting a 15yo continues with a pregnancy against their wishes.

Chunderella - you are assuming the girl has been viewed to have less capacity than other children of her age due to something about her. Her capacity has only been assessed for this one decision - by a court officer not a doctor - and my guess is that her unconventional decision is what has deemed her to lack the capacity for this one decision.

I wonder if she was asked to give consent for HPV (which seems to be usual amongst my friends with 12 year old girls) & whether she was allowed to consent to or refuse that.

If she has been brainwashed by her mother there are surely many people around her who could give her the other side. Her father could have arranged for her to talk with a doctor for example (although maybe not mine as they have always been supportive & on the whole in agreement with the lack of vax for the younger two - but still I'm sure they could run through the effects of the diseases).

Anyway the court & father do appear to have ignored that ultimately they will have to get the sisters compliance & agreement within the consulting room. It doesn't matter what the mother says or does, if the girls will not comply within the consulting room I cannot see that the vaccinations will be given.

I read it as awful point-scoring from both sides.

Neither girl has yet been vaccinated despite the deadline passing. Do you think the mother has then locked up at home, or do you think it more likely the girls are refusing. How could she challenge the decision? The best way surely would be to tell the medics she will not comply and they'll have to assault her to get it done.

Incidentally this does seen heavy handed for a booster. When MMR was introduced it was meant to be one jab for life. At least by the time any forced vaccination runs out she'll be old enough to tell them to bog off.

Having said all of the above, I would question the father's motivations given the adversarial relationship between him and his ex wife...

I'd question the mother's.

Mum and dad agreed with initial vaccine for older dd.

AW's study came out and both agreed not to give older dd the booster or the younger one the initial jab.

Study has been discredited numerous times therefore the reason for not having MMR has disappeared so why has mum not gone back to her original ideas?

It would be different if both had agreed never to have the children vaccinated.

All of this talk about consent, the term is 'informed consent', both girls have clearly not been informed.

so surely the ruling should have been made that they be informed and then decide at their ages to give concent or not?

NoYo

It would be quite hard to inform them after a bout of brainwashing

I'm not disagreeing with any of that at all, sashh and I said as much in my post upthread. I'm going on the assumption that the mother has been the RP, so undoubtedly she has been filling her daughters' heads with uninformed anti-vax nonsense. If Wakefield was what triggered their doubts in the first place, then they were both idiots at the time. I'm just and that the father is taking this through the courts now - unless this is an old story and the family were in Wales at the time of the outbreak, which would put an entirely different spin on it.

Personally when the outbreak happened - and started a smaller outbreak in Holland too - I was thankful my DDs had been vaccinated.

Hm interesting chunder - DH is a solicitor & felt very much this was not the sort of case that should end up at the courts. I see what you are saying though, but legal challenges cost money & it may be practically easier to refuse to comply - because I think it is unlikely a doctor would force anyone to have a vaccination - especially for the 15 year old. I also thought capacity had to be considered on a day by day basis so presumably the children could be found to have capacity on the day (no matter that they didn't have it last week) & entitled to refuse. I know procedures such as force feeding are sometimes carried out under court order - but usually as a matter of life & death? (Presume the same may be the case for blood transfusions although that may be against the wishes of the parents rather than child - I feel this case is more like force feeding as it is against the wishes of the individuals).

This case has confirmed to me that ds1 will have to always live with us. A vaccination has the potential to be disastrous for him, and while experts in his condition agree with this, generalists are unlikely to know enough about this to understand this. God knows what will happen when we die.

The irony of course is that the medical interventions we want them to do (checking teeth, vision, mending broken legs, etc are very difficult to do due to lack of compliance so don't get done).

Something I hadn't realised until talking to people about this is that girls are asked to consent to HPV at 12 & parental consent is not always sought. It does seen as if it is far easier to consent to receive than refuse a vaccination. The same test of capacity should be applied to both decisions - I'm sure the girls consenting for HPV are not subjected to quizzes of their understanding of vaccination issues prior to being given the vaccination.

They should be saintly but I expect they get round it by giving a leaflet to mum or dad and expecting (quite rightly) that they do there job.

I don't know - my understanding is that the girls are given a form to sign. Maybe they get a leaflet (does stuffing a leaflet in your bag count as 'informed consent'? )

The 'tests' to refuse seen much higher than to agree.

They're meant to be introducing flu jab via schools aren't they - eventually for everyone. That will be interesting. I won't consent for ds1 so he shouldn't be given it, & as ds3 is still at primary school I assume that my non consent will be accepted. Wonder what will happen with ds2 (at secondary). If he doesn't want it (& I'll go through the issues at home with him - it's certainly not something I would advise him to have) I'll have to support him in how to say no in face of an institutional assumption he will have it.

I think it's only for young children at the moment 3/4/5 age group. But I'm not sure.

Your not going to have an issue both you your DH and your doctor agree with not dong it the school are not going to over ride that nor would they attempt to.

The schools around here don't do the jabs you have to take the child to the docs if you want it done.

saintly I think the way consent is done for the HPV jab varies enormously between areas. We were given a sealed envelope addressed to both us and DD, with a consent form in which her consent and ours had equal placing in terms of size, font etc., and a lot of information about the vaccination. This pack was supplied 5 months ahead of time and although they asked for it to be returned within 7 days, this was not enforced - we called the nurse in charge of the scheme in our area and asked if we could bring it in on the day as we wanted time to consider, discuss and research. Ultimately I felt the decision was DD's to make.

Then again I work in health research so I feel that valid informed consent is hugely important - which is why this case is such an ethical minefield.