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:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 20:47

Why should it work one way and not the other?

OP posts:
HappyMummyOfOne · 13/10/2013 20:54

Babies and small children are held whilst having their ear pierced, they get no say in if its done and thats a vanity procedure done by shop assistants. No huge campaingns are going on to stop this yet people are in uproar over a vaccine being chosen for children by a parent.

I'm against the mmr but still ensured I protected DS and others.

JackNoneReacher · 13/10/2013 20:57

Intriguing that an 11 year old can consent to the HPV but a 15 year old can't withhold consent to the MMR.

This certainly seems like a case of 'you can make an informed decision as long as you make the right one'.

I don't like it at all, I believe we should maintain a really clear boundary on autonomy of our bodies or it could be a slippery slope.

Reminds me of some of the stories I've read on the Childbirth forums about women who've been completely ignored during labour because someone has decided (rightly or wrongly) that they need a procedure of some sort.

saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 20:58

Happymumofmum - the clue is in the word 'babies'

The NHS allows 12 year olds to consent to HPV against their parents wishes.

Bit odd to not allow an 11 or 15 year old to make their own decision. Have you tried holding down an older child. As I mentioned up thread 5 people couldn't hold down my ds1 aged 10 at the time for an X-ray. Nor did they manage to get him to take nurofen (the nurse ended up having to wash it out of her hair).

Would you tolerate being forcibly held down to have a procedure carried out that you did not consent to?

Thants · 13/10/2013 20:59

Jacknone. Those scenarios are completely different because not vaccinating affects the whole of society however a woman having choices in childbirth only affects her, I think bodily autonomy is paramount but not when you endanger everyone else.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 21:01

FWIW I don't agree with ear piercing for young children either. The issue here is that the children (or at least the older one) would be considered Gillick competent, would be allowed to choose to have the vaccine even if it was against their parents wishes but yet they are being told that they can not make this decision for themselves and are being forced to have it against their wishes. Even if the judge thinks it is for their own good/the good of others - it should still be down to them. Vaccination is not compulsory in this country.

OP posts:
JackNoneReacher · 13/10/2013 21:01

HappyMummy I think the 'uproar' (if indeed there is an one) is that the wishes of a 15 year old (and her Mother) are being ignored when 11 year olds are routinely deemed able to give informed consent.

JackNoneReacher · 13/10/2013 21:04

Thants but she isn't being vaccinated to protect society, but because the judge has decided she is unable to make an informed decision.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 21:04

Thants, have you had your immunity to measles tested recently?

How are they putting 'everyone else' in danger by not having the vaccine themselves?

OP posts:
hiddenhome · 13/10/2013 21:05

Personally, I think everyone and his dog (and cat) should be vaccinated, but, in this case, they are old enough to refuse. They can be given the facts and figures, but their views should be respected.

I certainly don't envy the HCP who has the rather dubious task of administering these vaccinations Hmm As a nurse myself, I'd refuse. How the heck can you force a 15 year old to have an injection? What are they going to do, section and forcibly sedate her?

Disgusting Angry

saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 21:08

Thanks.

Vaccination is not compulsory. I have refused it for my younger children and did not have to prove my capacity. It was noted on their records and we moved swiftly on.

This court case was not about 'the good of society' (nor should vaccination be - as it should be considered on an individual cost-benefit basis imo but still) it was about what was in the girls' interests. I find it extraordinary that a judge would think it appropriate to force vaccinate an 11 and 15 year old.

At 16 people are usually assumed to automatically have capacity to make medical decisions -although they can have capacity at a younger age (thus the NHS says a year 8 can decide whether or not she wants HPV vaccination) so I'm not sure what happens if the 15 year old manages to delay until she's 16.

As an adult I said 'no thanks' to the GP & HV and they said 'okay'. End of story.

saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 21:09

Thanks - should equal Thants..

Thants · 13/10/2013 21:09

Because if we don't vaccinate then diseases which have been eradicated come back! And they kill babies and old people who aren't or can't be vaccinated. Vaccination is protecting us from diseases that used to kill millions. Because of parents deciding to not vaccinate mumps is on the rise and when people with lower immunity catch these diseases they can die.

saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 21:10

That's not remotely relevant to this case. It wasn't a test of mass vaccination policy.

Andro · 13/10/2013 21:11

I think that, certainly at 15, education would be more appropriate than force. 15 (and 11 for that matter) is more than old enough to understand something being done to them without their consent, it's also old enough for something like this being forced on them by HCP's to do irrevocable damage to their trust in the medical profession. I'm glad it's likely to be difficult to find someone to carry out the procedure.

saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 21:12

Incidentally - in the pre-vaccination era babies were born with measles immunity. Now they're generally er not (unless their mother had measles). This is in NHS advice documents, not me making it up.

So the arguments for 'babies' could go both ways.

But anyway, not relevant to this case at all. It wasn't about society and vaccination. I'm not surprised a high court judge considered vaccination to be in the sisters interests. I am stunned she thinks it appropriate to ignore their wishes and have them forcibly vaccinated when they have not given consent.

Lilka · 13/10/2013 21:16

I don't think any medical professional will give these girls the vaccine without consent on the day. It certainly doesn't tally with my experiences of consent. Nor would I agree with forcing a vaccine on a non-consenting 15 year old.

The girls are going to have to make a decision - if they continue to withold consent, their mother is going to wind up in contempt of court for not following the court order, isn't she? They need to weigh up the consequences of willfully ignoring a court order, which could potentially be very serious, against saying 'yes, give me the jab' to the GP/nurse/other HCP

I think the girls might simply agree to get the jab to avoid consequences

JackNoneReacher · 13/10/2013 21:18

tbh I'm stunned too saintly partly because the HPV consent seems like such a strong precedent for 15 year olds to be able to give consent. How can the judge ignore that? Perhaps there are huge pieces of information missing from the story.

thants I assume you are in favour of compulsory vaccination for all. But a judge doesn't have the power to introduce this and shouldn't have the power to overrule the right to consent (or not) to treatment.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 21:19

Thants, MM and R have not been eradicated. So not being vaccinated is not going to 'bring them back' - they haven't gone anywhere. Mumps and rubella have never killed millions of people and measles fatalities were declining before the introduction of the measles vaccine thanks to the introduction of the NHS and the availability of antibiotics to treat the secondary infections such as pneumonia that can kill so you can't attribute it all to vaccination.

The reason that mumps is on the rise is because the mumps vaccine is not as effective as it was supposed to be and immunity from it wanes.

Unless you have had your own immunity checked recently how can you be sure that you aren't putting young babies and the elderly at risk yourself?

OP posts:
JackNoneReacher · 13/10/2013 21:20

Intersting Lilka... I don't think their Mother could be held in comtempt if she took them to a clinic but they declined and the nurse refused to give the vaccine.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 21:20

Although saintly is right - it's not really relevant to this case anyway.

OP posts:
saintlyjimjams · 13/10/2013 21:22

I would agree with JackNone - how could the mother be in contempt if the girls refuse? If she refuses to take them then she would be in contempt, but surely not if she takes them then the girls refuse.

TiredDog · 13/10/2013 21:22

This is utterly stupid. Vaccinating should not be compulsory. As someone else said are we going to have a 12 & 15 yr old physically restrained to force this ?

Older DC did not have the MMR. It didn't exist. You know what...they survived. This is desirable for a population but not so essential that teenagers should be forced by any means possible

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 13/10/2013 21:23

Yes, I wonder if that would be the case Lilka.

OP posts:
IneedAsockamnesty · 13/10/2013 21:23

The NHS allows 12 year olds to consent to HPV against their parents wishes

That's not quite correct, they allow them to consent if they are competent to do so.

You cannot compare the two different situations with the two different vaccines as they both involve different people. Nobody know that this particular 15yo would be allowed to consent to it or not.