Gillick competency and immunisations

[sugar4eva]

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 .

I'm not certain what projecting means?
Probably not helpful that I don't think I used it appropriately. I think I meant that you have been over-sensitive, because I think a GP should be happy that a child is making such decisions with parental consent. But take your point that GP may have been over-eager to do the (perceived) right thing by your daughter.

I'm doing my nursing training now and we are still taught Gilliam competency. And yes it would most definitely apply. It's completely up to the child if they understand that the vaccination is in their best interests to consent or refuse based on that understanding.

The biggest example is around the HPV vaccine. It's done in schools so has presumed consent. But the child or parent can refuse it if they wish. The brother of a friend of mine wanted to refuse their daughter it as they believed it promoted promiscuity (pretty closed minded Catholics) but she was a really sensible kid so would have had the competency at that age to consent to the vaccine if she wanted.

On 21 May 2009, confusion arose between Gillick competency, which identifies under-16s with the capacity to consent to their own treatment, and the Fraser guidelines, which are concerned only with contraception and focus on the desirability of parental involvement and the risks of unprotected sex in that area. A persistent rumour arose that Victoria Gillick disliked having her name associated with the assessment of children's capacity, although a recent editorial in the BMJ debunks this idea, quoting Victoria Gillick as saying that she "has never suggested to anyone, publicly or privately, that [she] disliked being associated with the term 'Gillick competent' ".[1]

I was incorrect slightly BUT anyone who works with young people these days (inc social care)refers to the Fraser Guidelines (I am one of them).

I declined a vaccination that my parents wished me to have, aged 14, based on ethical objections to the way the vaccine had been produced.

The problem with Gillick competence is that by the strict definition, a lot of adults wouldn't appear to have competence, so what tends to happen is that under 16's have the right to agree but not to disagree with the general medical consensus. As others have said, I'm not sure how you carry out a medical procedure on a teenager who absolutely does not want it, but there have been cases where a child's refusal to undergo a heart transplant, for example, has been overuled by the courts (I think it was the case of Child M that I'm thinking of).

And cases where it hasn't

I believe in one case the need for a transplant was very sudden and the court ruled the girl hadn't had chance to think it through.

In the other the heart damage was the result of chemo and the child, though younger was deemed to be well aware of the consequences having spent much of her life in and out of hospital.

DD has met some of her school peers and they all agreed she knew exactly what she was doing. I believe she did agree to a transplant when she was older and stronger.

Part of a Gp giving contraceptives to under 16's is that they explore of the person will discuss it with an appropriate adult and encourage this.

Perhaps the Gp felt ur daughter wanted it as a contraceptive as well as for her periods and thought she might open up about her sex life/questions if u weren't there.

Mirror link to the DD above turning18