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

[bumbleymummy]

From this article here

True Saintly - if she complies by taking them but they refuse then surely she has upheld her end of the bargain?

Sock, but it seems to be the case that they just feel that she does bit have enough/correct information to make the decision rather than her not being capable of making a decision at all. Shouldn't she just be given the appropriate info?

It seems ok to give inaccurate information about the HPV vaccine to 12 yo and accept that they are making an informed decision based on that.

Sock - the NHS info makes it clear that the assumption is pretty much that in the HPV case it would be usual for the child to be considered to have capacity to make the decision. Technically yes I'm sure capacity should be considered on each individual basis, but I don't think there are many capacity checks carried out before vaccinating. It is certainly the norm to assume capacity.

According to the Daily Mail (so must be correct), the girls are refusing to have it & physically forcing them is legally 'a grey area'.

You'd like to think that being unable to force someone to have something against their will would be a bit more definite than 'a grey area'

it's only children- and girl children at that

Girl children need to know their place. They're not capable of knowing what's good for them.

I just looked through the UN convention on the rights of the child and couldn't find anything obviously relevant (which surprised me a bit) but this seems such a crazy decision by the judge that I can't believe it will stand.

Saintly

On the other thread about this I mentioned one of my dc's not being vaccinated this dc was quite happy to go along with the HPV vaccine I was not happy due to a few medical issues, I raised the issue of competency they agreed with me, she did not have the jab.

If the parent disagrees with the child's choice and competency is an issue then its down to the parent to flag this.

Gillick competency is not automatic. We do not know anything about the girls in question.

Ah that's interesting sock.

I wonder what would have happened had you wanted her to have it and she didn't want it, whether raising competency would have meant the HCP's gave her the vaccination. I suspect they would have been reluctant.

Although of course had it gone to court the outcome might have been different.

I think medics tend to err on the side of caution and are reluctant to carry out a procedure if they think consent has not been given. That's always been my experience anyway.

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

Lots of 'anxious' mother stuff on this thread which is rather unfair as the decision to not vaccinate the children was initially a joint one. Now the father has changed his mind and suddenly the mother is the unreasonable one? She wasn't the only one bringing them up with the reasons why they had chosen not to vaccinate, surely the father had something to do with the 'brainwashing' too?

I would be horrified if a 'Gillick competent' 15 year old was forced to have anything done to her, she didn't wish. 11 year old is a bit borderline, but should probably be given the test and allowed to choose for things like this.

If it's acceptable to do it to a GC 15 yo, why not an adult? Line us all up and jab whatever they think is 'good for us' into our arms

I wonder where medics draw the line though - what age/treatment/diagnosis makes doing something to a younger child acceptable or not. It's a difficult one.

Pixel,

Both parents agreed several years ago due to the not so delightful mr Wakefield, dad changed his mind when that info was discredited so again quite a few years ago.the girls (or at least one of them) had already had the initial dose the argument was over a booster.

The judge found the girls to be parroting the mother and that there view point was not there own nor did they have the competency to decide for themselves based on there limited understanding of the issue they claimed to be the most important.

Saintly

It would have been no different if the courts had of been used the competency issue would have remained the same unless of course the judge was prepared to ignore 2 specialists the GP both parents and a fair few SEN reports, possible but unlikely.

I thought the older girl had had her first jabs before the Wakefield thing and then ^

sorry, pressed by mistake.
and then both parents decided not to go ahead with any more. The 'Wakefield thing' was when my ds was due to have his MMR and he is 13 so I reckon that 15 year old had certainly had hers by then.

Oh re-read and realised that's what you meant! Anyway, still seems unfair that the dad gets off scott free with the nutter jibes when he is chopping and changing his mind and the rest of the family is expected to go along with him.

Wakefield advised people to vaccinate anyway. And even if he hasn't there have been many years to change their minds.

Dad supposedly changed his mind after the Wales measles outbreak (did anyone ever track down confirmed case numbers btw?). By which time his 15 year old was vegan & objecting to the animal products within the MMR. That's a whole different reason. It isn't usual to force animal products onto people who object ethically. Even specific products (eg people refusing the flu spray for religious reasons because it contains pork gelatine - seen as perfectly acceptable).

However, the officer said that when she asked them what would happen if they became ill with measles, mumps or rubella and needed medicine, they clearly had not thought about what the ingredients in that medicine might be.
Of course they hadn't thought about what the ingredients might be as 'medicine' isn't terribly specific! Poor kids were put on the spot with that question. Out of interest would treatment for M, M or R necessarily involve medicines containing animal products or would there be alternatives? After all there are a lot of vegetarians and vegans about.

Ambivalent on this one. I do think the girls should be allowed to make their own choice. On the other hand I wonder if certain parents rely on the fact that the majority of children have been vaccinated against MMR = 'oh well my child wont get it anyway'.

Either way it cant be nice for the girls to have their parents bickering over it. So in that case yes, may as well leave the choice to them

So the "anxious mother" is deemed sensible enough to have custody of the children but not to make decisions about the MMR. And why did the father only change his mind about the MMR this year? There's no new information about safety of the MMR.

I am shocked. Utterly shocked. Gillick ,Fraser, fundamental freedoms blown to pieces

The reasons don't much matter as nobody else has to agree with them,the only thing that does matter is that the person who has them actually understands them.

Anyone of my kids could refuse all manor of things and if they understood the repercussions and thought process behind that choice I would defend their right to do it, but some decisions they make are clearly not thought about ( thinking dc2 the bacon roll and being vegetarian convo).

It would be interesting to see the order as its unlikely that mum has been ordered to get it done,its more likely she has been ordered to make them available for it or take them to get it something like that. I should think you couldn't actually order mum to do it and no where has mention of a HCP also being named.

Pixel, rubella and mumps are unlikely to require any treatment at all. Measles doesn't usually unless they develop a complication that would require antibiotics. I suppose it would be the antibiotics that she was talking about - whether or not they would contain animal products/be tested on animals.