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

[bumbleymummy]

From this article here

We don't know the full facts but let's not that let that small matter get in the way of outrage so why are people assuming that both girls are indeed Gillick competent. We know very, very little about the girls and their capacity to make medical decisions.

It says that their decision has been influenced by their mother- not that they were not considered capable of making a decision at all. How many investigations do you think they do into the 12 year olds who are deciding whether or not to have the HPV vaccine?

whether or not they would contain animal products/be tested on animals.

Tested on animals is a certainty in the UK, it's part of the licensing procedure (you can't even go to clinical trials without animal studies).

Pixel - there is NO treatment for M M or R. So it is a bonkers question. The only known treatment is IV vitamin A, but while it has been shown to be very useful for people who are starving (and vitamin A deficient) the jury is out as to whether it's any use for people who are not deficient.

You can give paracetamol to reduce symptoms but it's not a treatment for M M or R. Antibiotics would be given for secondary infections.

So the question is nonsense in relation to MMR. Maybe the court officer thought that because the child wouldn't refuse, e.g. lifesaving cancer treatment tested on animals she wasn't able to decide about MMR I was pretty shocked to find out that it was a court officer making the assessment - I would have thought a doctor would be more appropriate. Or was is CAFCASS?

Candy - the eldest child is a few months off the age when competency is standardly assumed for medical decisions (except in cases of LD's - which given she has made the decision to be vegan seems unlikely). She is way past the age when for non-complex cases children are deemed capable of consenting to HPV by the NHS.

Outraged because the idea of forcibly pinning down two children who have said they do not want this vaccination does not sit comfortably with me. I have been present when treatment has been attempted to be forced on an older child. It was horrific (and was not given in the end).

Oh sorrr bumbly already said that about treatment!

I just think shame on the parents for using their children as pawns in their marital breakup. It should never have come to court.

I feel so sorry for these young girls, caught between their parents' acrimonious behaviour! No matter what the outcome, there are no winners here

I think the mum can only facilitate the injection, at those ages, if the kids really don't want to have it, short of using quite a lot of force which would be entirely disproportionate in this case, I don't think there is a lot which can be done.

I think it's a bit unfair to say 'parents'. The father took it to court - knowing that it was against his daughters wishes. If an absent father tried to force my children to have a medical procedure they didn't want forced upon them I would respond the way the mother has.

It would have been a kinder father that explained his concerns to his daughter's, arranged for them to meet with people he felt could give the other side, then allowed them to make their own decisions.

Warring parents with children stuck in the middle, one thing. Father ignoring daughters wishes and forcing them to undergo medical treatment, quite another.

if the girls are happy for the following possibilities -

• deaf or handicapped babies if they catch rubella when pregnant, or give it to someone else
• risk of brain injury from measles (for which antibiotics have no effect, it is a VIRUS)
• never travelling outside Europe, because it is risky and arrogant to go to places where these diseases are endemic if not vaccinated.
• risk of giving mumps to a male who cannot be vaccinated for a real reason

...then let them refuse. Doesn't sound like anyone in the family is really that competent.

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.

This is consistent with current case law. Gillick competence only applies to the decision to give consent; it does not give children the right to withhold consent. Until there is case or statutory law to correct this anomaly, a child has no legal right to refuse a treatment if the person with parental responsibility deems she should have it.

-ds1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child because his mother didn't realised you could get rubella after the MMR. Ds1 passed it onto no-one because we stayed in the entire infectious period time
-risk of brain injury from measles is incredibly small. We know personally a child who is brain injured from MMR.
-Which diseases? not that we can travel outside Europe thanks in part to the lovely vaccinations
-Mumps vaccine immunity wanes (and isn't there a whistleblowing case currently ongoing about mumps efficacy data being made up overstated during clinical trials?). Much better to get lifelong immunity as a child when mumps is mild, rather that have vaccine immunity wear off & a worse dose.

None of which is relevant to this case at all, as vaccination is not compulsory. I did not have to give reasons to refuse vaccination for my younger children, not was my competency questioned. I am offered the flu jab every year, and decline every year. I am not held down and forced to have it, nor am I required to deliver a scientific paper on why I am refusing. I just say thanks, but no thanks.

Turps - does that mean the NHS info on HPV is wrong then? It says on there that children can refuse the HPV vaccination, and there is a case on one of these threads where that happened (mother wanted the child to have it, child said no.). I have also given permission for my non-competent child to have treatment and doctors have refused to treat him because he would not assent.

This is from the NHS webpage about HPV and is talking about 12/13 year olds:
^What if my daughter doesn’t want the HPV vaccination? Your daughter has to sign a consent form before she can be vaccinated. So she doesn’t have to have the HPV vaccine if she doesn’t want to. However, it’s worth making sure she’s thought things through. The HPV vaccine has a good safety record and will protect her against cervical cancer for many years.
Suggest she speaks to the nurse or doctor if she wants more information, on her own, or with you if she’d prefer^

saintly if you are only thinking of HPV in legal terms then the website is incorrect. However I assume that the HPV vaccination programme has taken the view that it is better to have girls' consent to the jabs than to put them off and make the vaccination programme unpopular by compelling them to have it. Presumably the website is reflecting this, not just the legal side of things.

Thanks turps, that's interesting. I said earlier that it seems easier for a minor to consent to a vaccination rather than refuse one, and it sounds as if legally that is the case. Even though in practice I don't think medics work in that way (and work in the way the NHS website describes).

I think it's horrible a girl of 15 (presuming she is gillick competent), would be forced into having an injection she opposed to.

11 is borderline for me and I could perhaps see why they might need dictating to more, but 15 is just awful. Vaccination is not compulsory and at 16 she'd be responsible for her own medical affairs, legally allowed to refuse and there would be NOTHING anyone can do. She's a vegan which to me is a real reason for refusing the MMR.

What on earth is the dad doing, he's ruined any chance of a relationship with his daughters. I'd certainly never forgive him for taking this to court. He is short sighted beyond belief, they won't be kids he can dictate to for much longer.

Sorry saintly but why on earth does being vegan make her unlikely to have LD's?

Bottom line is nobody knows anything about these girls.

Its very unlikely the order is worded as anything other than make the child available or do not hinder as opposed to restrain your child whilst its done.

wowzers...what an astonishing news story.

I think there is an issue here of parental brain washing.....

I would imagine a lot of children of JW would also refuse a blood transfusion etc. (what child wants to go to hell?), so it isn't really a matter of whether the child could make the decision but whether the decision being made actually reflects the opinions of the child or the parent?

Because the type of thought & decision making that needs to go into being vegan at 15 is not really compatible with having LD's of a degree that would lead to being generally declared to lack capacity or ability to make decisions. DS1 will have his capacity assessed at 15 in order to see whether I am allowed to continue to handle his DLA on his behalf. I think if he was vegan and able to articulate why etc, I wouldn't be handling his money.

I do agree with you about the wording (I looked up a legal site, and it doesn't seem to refer particularly to the girls at all, it's about the parents, there seems to be no provision made within what has been said as to what happens if the girls continue to refuse). Which ties in with what the mother's solicitor is reported as saying.

He shouldn't be being assessed for that until he's 16 ( if the assessment is being done by dwp or an agent off the dwp) doing it at 15 and the decision standing from the assessment date as opposed to his 16 birthday would be rather unusual and against dwp rules (if the person with PR has not requested the assessment)

"Because the type of thought & decision making that needs to go into being vegan at 15 is not really compatible with having LD's of a degree that would lead to being generally declared to lack capacity or ability to make decisions"

A child with learning difficulties may well choose to be vegan because their mother says meat is wrong. Severe autism might mean that a child cannot contemplate their mother is wrong on some issues or that there is a range of opinons.

I hope that this court ruling is giving the girls a choice. The MMR is not so life changing that a teen should be forced to have it. Children younger than 15 have refused aggressive cancer treatment and had their wishes respected.

If she's already had one MMR then should she be offered an immunity test first? She may not need the vaccine at all.

Well my definition of severe autism wouldn't include anyone capable of having any concept of what veganism even meant. Elsewhere someone said she was the only vegan in the family, so maybe the mother had no influence on that decision (I was vegetarian at 15 much to my mother's disgust, it certainly wasn't her choice).

Everyone I know has had the visit done close to the 16th birthday so that the decision is in place by the time the child turns 16. Or at least I thought they did. It's not going to make the blindest bit of difference to ds1, although I still maintain that if he suddenly becomes able to argue about & have opinions on veganism the DWP will be saying I cannot look after his money (he won't - I don't suppose he'll even know milk comes from a cow at 16)

Anyway point is if someone can present an argument as to why they are vegan it's unlikely they're going to be under court of protection. Not impossible granted, but a clue that in this case there is unlikely to be a general question regarding capacity (& if there was I suspect it would be known as it would make the case very different indeed).

is there actually non-vegan medication routinely used to manage the condition of patients suffering with measles? On threads about measles, people are normally saying things like "there is no treatment possible"!

It all sounds a bit "but what if you were on a desert island, alone except for a herd of pigs" to me.

Even if there is actually medication used to manage measles, I still don't see that it's such a trump card. Choosing to avoid animal products unless absolutely necessary for health is a fairly standard stance.

Girl: "this is against my principles"
Counsellor: "but if you do develop measles you might have to use animal products THEN"

Er, what? It's not actually as if she's guaranteed to catch measles, is it?

Disclaimer: vegan, brought up anti-vaccination, chose MMR for self when 18 and can make far better arguments for the MMR than that BECAUSE I am a vegan.

And I was parroting anti-vaccine nonsense when 15, and I was just as competent to make decisions about my body as the adults who parrot the same nonsense to me today about my decision to have the MMR for myself and my children. This is double standards.

X-post about the treatment plan. Yep, sounds like the court officer/counsellor was a twit.