Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that these girls should not be vaccinated against their will?

129 replies

bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 18:43

From this article here

OP posts:
Spirulina · 13/10/2013 18:46

Think the 'anxious mother' has a lot to answer to here..

Thants · 13/10/2013 18:53

No I think they should be vaccinated. I don't think it is fair for other people to be put at risk of deadly diseases because of the whims of a parent.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 18:55

It's going against their own wishes though. Would you like to be forced into having something you didn't want for the 'greater good'? Dangerous territory.

OP posts:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 18:56

Why are they putting others at risk Thants?

OP posts:
Thants · 13/10/2013 18:56

They are children. We force children all the time into having medical procedures against their will. Most kids would choose to never go to the dentist but we force them and that doesn't threaten their lives!

ReallyTired · 13/10/2013 18:57

I think they should be offered the opportunity for councellling to make their own decision concerning the jabs. A 15 year old is certainly Gilick competant to decide whether she has the MMR and I suspect the eleven year old is as well.

These children need information to make up their own minds. They can always CHOOSE to have the MMR at a later date.

"No I think they should be vaccinated. I don't think it is fair for other people to be put at risk of deadly diseases because of the whims of a parent."

Their position is no different to the thousands of parents up and down the country who have chosen not to vacinate.

IneedAsockamnesty · 13/10/2013 18:57

Go and read the judges comments.

Its not against there will as there will has been clouded by a brainwashing mother

DiamondMask · 13/10/2013 18:57

I dont like the idea of forcing children of that age.

ReallyTired · 13/10/2013 18:58

"Its not against there will as there will has been clouded by a brainwashing mother"

The mother wants to deny them the option of the MMR, the father wants them to have it. Surely the children should be allowed to choose.

Bowlersarm · 13/10/2013 19:00

I think they are old enough to make up their own minds.

What'll happen if they resist? Will they be held down?

I'm sorry but I don't like it one bit.

KirjavaTheCorpse · 13/10/2013 19:02

Yanbu.

The fifteen year old in particular, imo, is being put into a very strange position - she's probably choosing what contraception she's using, but apparently has no choice as to what is injected into her body? Hmm

I can only imagine how he's damaged his relationship with his children.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:03

I'm pretty sure they would be considered Gillick competent if they were choosing to have the vaccine against their parents wishes.

There's also the issue of vaccinating someone against their will. Will a HCP be able to do that? Don't they need consent? Wouldn't it be considered assault?

OP posts:
Beamur · 13/10/2013 19:03

I read a bit of this too - they had seen a counsellor during the process. From what I read it seemed that at least one of the girls had ethical concerns about the animal products in the vaccine (she is vegan) but was asked to consider what could happen if she became ill. The medicines to treat the illness would also have animal products in...
It sounded to me as if there had been a lot of talking about the pros' and cons' of the situation.
I don't think this is something that children should 'choose' for themselves and if on something so fundamental, the parents could not agree, then who else but the court?

Sirzy · 13/10/2013 19:04

Reading the comments from the welfare officer it would appear that their choice wasn't a well informed one and because of that I feel that they were right to support the choice of the father in this case.

If they had put forward a rational opposition to it then it would have been different.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:06

Beamur - do you think girls shouldn't be allowed to choose to have the HPV vaccine then? That's a choice they have to make themselves...

OP posts:
ravenAK · 13/10/2013 19:06

I'm strongly in favour of vaccination, but I think these girls should have the right to refuse.

As ReallyTired says, I would think both - & certainly the 15yo - would be Gillick competent.

ReallyTired · 13/10/2013 19:07

I feel that teenage children should be able to make choices even if they are not "informed". The logistics of pinning down a sobbing, frightened 15 year old girl don't bare thinking about. The risks of not having the MMR do not justify the cruetly.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:08

Sirzy, if that's the case then they should be given all the information so that they can be considered informed but Ireally don't feel comfortable with forcing vaccination on someone. Quite scary IMO.

OP posts:
Beamur · 13/10/2013 19:09

I think Sirzy has said it much better than me - in this case (on balance I think my comments are too definite and the vaccination situation is way more complicated) the children were not making a balanced informed choice.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:09

Sorry - missed a line. They should be given all the info so they can be considered informed and then be allowed to make a decision. That decision should be respected.

OP posts:
ReallyTired · 13/10/2013 19:10

Prehaps an option is to offer the girls the vacination even 6 months/ year until they are 18 year olds old. Give them the leaflet, but ultimately allow them the right to say "no"

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:12

Do you think girls of 13 are able to make a balanced, informed choice about the HPV vaccine? Is a decision only considered balanced/informed if they choose the vaccine?

OP posts:
caroldecker · 13/10/2013 19:12

The logistics of pinning down a sobbing, frightened 15 year old girl don't bare thinking about. The risks of not having the MMR do not justify the cruetly.

Cruelty! - bollocks

BigBoobiedBertha · 13/10/2013 19:13

The judge looked at whether they were capable of making their own decision about whether or mot to have the jab. It was decided they were not competent to make that decision. They thought that measles was a bit of a rash. Given that their parents were fighting over this court and they must have known that they were going to be questioned, you would have thought they would be a little more knowledgeable about what measles actually is and the implications of vaccinating or not vaccinating. They weren't. Whether that is because they weren't mature enough, or they incapable of understanding or whether they were viewed as too far under the influence of their mother, I don't know but that is what the judge decided. The ruling is understandable on that basis imo.

However, how you force a 15 yr old to have a vaccination I don't know. It is one thing making a reasonable ruling and quite another carrying it out with all the emotional turmoil involved. Not a happy situation for anybody.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 19:14

Care to expand Carol? Why is it not cruel to pin someone down and force them to do something they do not want to do?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread