Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Gillick competency and immunisations

33 replies

sugar4eva · 25/02/2014 16:09

Does this case law-
Apply to vaccinations . I wonder how a dc could have the time and ability to do research . Interesting question of capacity issues applied to dc s under 16 . .just been reading about it and interesting thoughts for those of us who's d c are under 16 .

OP posts:
MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 16:49

Would you deny an under-16 the right to consent to medical treatment, providing they understood all the ramifications and procedures involved?

TeenAndTween · 25/02/2014 16:51

Absolutely no knowledge on this whatsoever. Smile

But

A teen DC wanting an immunisation against his parent's wishes would have the medical establishment on their side, and therefore maybe the immunisation could fairly go ahead.

A DC wishing to refuse an immunisation against his parent's wishes jolly well should do the research to back up their reasoning! That said, I suspect (again no knowledge) that a medical professional may not immunise an uncooperative teen.

Weathergames · 25/02/2014 16:52

They haven't been called "Gillick" for years it's Fraser.

GhoulWithADragonTattoo · 25/02/2014 16:53

It definitely applies. Children are more likely to be found to be Gillick competent if they are doing something which follows medical orthodoxy.

Weathergames · 25/02/2014 16:54

Under 16 can have an implant or even a termination without parents permission so pretty sure this would be allowed.

MrsTerryPratchett · 25/02/2014 16:55

I would decide that one of the standards used to decide if someone was competent was the ability to interpret medical research. Bingo! No issue as then only people who consented to immunizations would be deemed competent not really but I'm bored and thought I would start a bunfight about jabs.

candycoatedwaterdrops · 25/02/2014 16:59

As a PP said, if you're researching it, you need to be looked at the Fraser guidelines.

candycoatedwaterdrops · 25/02/2014 17:00

*be looking

Sirzy · 25/02/2014 17:02

If a young person can show they fully understand the ramifications of the decision then they should get to decide what happens to their body.

boydonewrongagain · 25/02/2014 17:04

I immunise teenagers and often use frasure guidelines to deem a young person competant we have a legal duty to explain the benefits and possible complications of immunisations to them.and get the teenager to explain this back to us in their own terms so we know they properly understand.

Ive had teenagers who have refused immunisations, hundreds who have self consented and i have refused to give immunisations a few times when there is no consent as i felt the teenager didnt have a good enough understanding.

If i am injecting a substance into a childs body without adult consent then personally i want to be as certain as possible they know both the benefits and risks of this as im putting my entire career on the line and wouldnt want to mislead someone into consenting to something they dont understand.

MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 17:08

Fraser guidelines are used in the context of contraception, no? Gillick competency applies to any medical treatment.

Weathergames · 25/02/2014 17:12

Fraser Guidelines are what used to be Gillick Competencies Victoria Gillick got pissed off with them using her name so they use the judges name from the case instead - applies to any medical treatment inc counselling and sexual health - amongst other things.

MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 17:13

Victoria Gillick got pissed off with them using her name so they use the judges name from the case instead

This is not true (according to a BMJ editorial on the subject). Gillick is on record as never raising an objection.

MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 17:14

Anyway, this is tangential. I think MrsTerry's highlighting of the inherent circular nature of the definition of competency is an excellent point.

Weathergames · 25/02/2014 17:16

Someone said she was pissed off :)

trampstamp · 25/02/2014 17:20

I think the most important thing is they can show they have not been brain washed by there parents views

Nocomet · 25/02/2014 17:24

The HPV leaflet more or less says it's your choice not your parents.

And DD1(who was just not 16) got a right grump lung at from doctor for taking me in with her to discuss going on the pill for period issues.

DD needs to go back an actually get the prescription and hasn't, because she doesn't really want to go by herself.

She is a very independent self reliant child, she has the hump, because it's totally her choice to want me there. She is very irritated with the GP refusing to see that some DCs want to include their parents in decisions.

MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 17:25

I think the most important thing is they can show they have not been brain washed by there parents views

But what if their parents' views align with those of the medical profession in determining which medical interventions are in their best interests?

Or when do you decide that they have been brainwashed? Is it impossible for a 15 year old JW to genuinely demonstrate competence if refusing a blood transfusion?

Nocomet · 25/02/2014 17:25

Grumpy look not gump lung Blush

MaidOfStars · 25/02/2014 17:28

And DD1(who was just not 16) got a right grump lung at from doctor for taking me in with her to discuss going on the pill for period issues....She is very irritated with the GP refusing to see that some DCs want to include their parents in decisions

Are you sure you're not projecting? Why would a GP not welcome these decisions to be taken in conjunction with parents?

Nocomet · 25/02/2014 17:28

Jw's are a special form of lunacy for which there needs to be a vaccination

cory · 25/02/2014 17:30

It's not just about having the medical establishment on your side: how would a doctor would go about immunising a 15yo who is refusing to have it done? Surely there is no way you can safely insert a needle into the body of a struggling child beyond a certain age? Your only hope if, as a parent or medical professional, you were anxious to have it done would have to be to persuade him. In which case he would no longer be refusing.

Nocomet · 25/02/2014 17:33

I'm not certain what projecting means?

I think it was an older female GP trying to do the 'right thing' and give DD the right to talk privately. Trouble is she dived in without letting DD explain that she absolutely didn't want privacy.

boydonewrongagain · 25/02/2014 17:33

Maidofstars.

There have been many court cases where young people have disagreed with medical professionals and taken their case to the high court and shown competently that they understand completely the benefits and risks and won their case.

I can only speak from an imms point of view but if i had a teenager refusing an immunisation id ask why (usually its because they dont want an injection) but suddenly change their mind when their friends have it and live to tell the tale. If someone.refused an immunisation for me i personally wouldnt give it.

Its actually classed as assault if i do so young people arent just pressured into.going along with them.

TeacupDrama · 25/02/2014 17:43

unless life threatening no-one is going to force a child over 13 to have very much done without a long discussion so a child that's parent had signed consent for vaccination but child said no on the day it would not happen

it varies but most NT children would be considered competent at 13-14 some younger some older

recently child won a case to not have treatment any longer for cancer at age 13