School conducted a LFT on my son, against my consent

[duckme]

We received an email from our school to say that, due to the increase in covid cases, they are going to resume the LFT scheme in school (secondary) rather than at home. They sent an online consent form for parents to complete. I declined consent. I marked the form as such and sent it back electronically. My son was actually isolating until today as his bubble had burst, but I reminded him that he didn't have consent for the tests so he wasn't to have one. I know mistakes can happen and forms can be misplaced so I wanted to make sure he was fully aware of my consent.
He came home today and informed me that he had the test.
He said the whole class was called the the hall. The lady could see on the list that he hasn't got consent and asked him about it. He repeated what I had told him, 'my mom said, I'm not to have one'. The lady then proceeded to lecture him about protecting his family and friends. He is 13 and gave in to the person of authority in front of him. Despite them having explicit instructions to the contrary.
AIBU in being absolutely livid? That person ignored written consent, ignored the verbal consent of my son and then guilted him into having an invasive test.
I'll be contacting the school tomorrow to complain but I'd like to know if my covid fatigue is making me over react a little. But I can't imagine it being ok for a school to override parental consent in this way pre covid! Have we all surrendered all our our rights now? Even our parental ones?

@Cavalierqueen

It's really not irrelevant. He is already at higher risk of other diseases. Because the antivax nuts now have a foothold, other diseases will rise also. And while he is in hospital with Mumps he could catch Covid or vise versa. I think the mother sounds insane, it's hardly a rectal exam ffs. Another example of attention seeking. Covid is good at identifying these folks.

You're the one who sounds insane here.

If it has been decided that all should have the test for the greater good, then OP's son would be a huge weak link in that particular chain if he did not.

The entire array of freedoms that we have in a democracy are built on the foundation that each person is an individual with a right to their own agency within the rules of the law and that they cannot be reduced to a unit within the state.

I actually had sympathy about children missing school but it seems since so many parents just aren't happy to test their kids I just think sod it now and let them blame a generation of angry mumsnetters who refused to test to control the virus spread for their lack of education.

@Applesonthelawn

I think this is a case where parents should not actually be asked to consent. The test is minimally invasive with no known health implications. If it has been decided that all should have the test for the greater good, then OP's son would be a huge weak link in that particular chain if he did not. On balance, I don't think it's reasonable for consent to be withheld and the issue is that OP was asked in the first place.

I agree with this, to be honest.

When I was at school, we had someone come round to each class and check for nits, if they were found-that child’s parents were phoned and they had to be treated. This is similar. No doubt if we could do head checks now, the parents of children with nits would just say their child wasn’t having the check and the whole thing would be futile. With nits spreading merrily across the class…

It doesn't matter whether it was for the 'greater good' or not - OP explicitly didn't give her consent and that was overridden.

I don't think it's the same as someone administering a vaccine or posting photos of a looked after child on social media though, as the risk of harm isn't the same.

The issue of consent remains though.

@Cavalierqueen

It's highly likely the kid doesn't even have his MMR or other Vax if his mother is that nuts so he is actually more vulnerable than other kids in his class.

He's fully vaccinated. All of my children are.

YABVU

@Applesonthelawn

I think this is a case where parents should not actually be asked to consent. The test is minimally invasive with no known health implications. If it has been decided that all should have the test for the greater good, then OP's son would be a huge weak link in that particular chain if he did not. On balance, I don't think it's reasonable for consent to be withheld and the issue is that OP was asked in the first place.

Its not relevant.

The child still has a right to not feel pressured to consent.

The fact its not invasive and has no health implications is not relevant.

The child should be able to say I do not want to be touch by another person in whatever way that is and to not feel pressured to tolerate it because of peer pressure or this concept of 'the greater good' which can be used in certain situations in a way which becomes much more sinister.

Its about bodily boundaries.

If you force kids in one situation against their will it makes it harder for them to feel they can say no in other situations.

Thats known as unintended side effects and consequences which may be nothing to do with covid but may pose a safety risk to a child inadvertantly. These harms should be taken seriously and not dismissed because our current concern and political priority happens to be covid.

Its not a neutral thing to do, however it seems on the surface. It makes a child feel powerless against authority and unable to express and assert their wishes. Thats important to promote as being crucial to overall wellbeing.

This isn't just about covid as much as many posters wish to make it.

That just makes it weirder

@Cavalierqueen

That just makes it weirder

No it doesn't. Everything isn't black and white, no matter how some people insist on making it so, especially when it comes to covid.

The fact that you can't understand this and are making up things to suit your view doesn't make it fact and it's entirely your issue.

@beyondstressedandmore

It doesn't matter whether it was for the 'greater good' or not - OP explicitly didn't give her consent and that was overridden.

I don't think it's the same as someone administering a vaccine or posting photos of a looked after child on social media though, as the risk of harm isn't the same.

The issue of consent remains though.

Consent doesn't change depending on an arbitrary opinion about risk of harm. That's exactly why most school staff posting agree with OP on the issue of consent.

I am assuming the child will have done the test himself, so no-one would have been physically forcing him to actually have the swab in his mouth or nose. If they had spoken to him in such a way that made him feel that he had to do the test then that would be wrong, but the OP has said that he would be happy to have the test if it meant him missing lessons, so not sure much coercion (if any) was needed. It also seems there was quite bit of coercion from the mum.

Interesting that a child has the right to withdraw the parent consent if they don't want the test, but in theory not the other way round.

In respect of being coerced into having the test, if the person handing out the tests said they are a helpful way to pick up some positive cases which helps reduce the spread, I don't think there would be anything wrong in saying that. But if they had said you need to do the test otherwise your granny might die, the obviously that would be wrong.

YABVU
What reasons did you give your son as to why he shouldn't do the test? Obviously the reasons they gave at school in favour of the test were more convincing. Don't you want to keep him and everyone at school and beyond safe?

But if they had said you need to do the test otherwise your granny might die, the obviously that would be wrong

Really, this is the bar for coercion. The pupil said no at the first request. That's the end of the discussion because the adults around him are in a position of authority and the the pupils who surround him are a lever for compliance. The entire situation and his consent was a farce.

The child still has a right to not feel pressured to consent. The fact its not invasive and has no health implications is not relevant

That is true, but it applies as much to pressure from the OP as from his peers or the school. The OP has already admitted that her DS wasn't originally that bothered about having the test. It was she who insisted he shouldn't, even reminding him on the day.

No one who is saying the DS was coerced has been able to explain why it's ok for the OP to coerce him, but not the school.

The whole concept of 'the greater good' can be a really fucked up on.

Clearly more people need to watch Hot Fuzz!

We could argue that letting the 'weak' die is for the greater good of society. We could argue that harvesting the organs of criminals is for the greater good of society.

There are reasons why we don't do this.

The principles that underpin consent, even in seemingly minor situations like this, exist for a reason to protect us in ways that don't always seem obvious or connected to the issue at hand directly.

If you undermine the principles of consent, you expose yourself to exploitation and harms which have wide ranging consequences which may be much more significant.

This is the whole issue of medical ethics and why they exist.

You are 100% DNBU

You need to complain and make it official
Also speak to your son about standing firm in the face of pressure

I think the parallel to checking the whole class for nits is an excellent one. Minimally invasive check that all children should have to ensure it is effective for the majority. Do teachers have to ask for consent these days to check for nits? My youngest is now 19 and I don't recall being asked for consent when he was at a relevant age.
The issue of "bullying" a 13 year old for consent is an entirely different one. It could be that the child felt compromised because he knew his parent did not wish him to have the test and that is why he perceived coercion rather than the force of a logical argument.

Sounds like he felt embarrassed and I would too.

They don't check for nits anymore, as far as I am aware. Certainly never been a feature in my DC's schooling and they are 14, 12 and 7. And I'd expect any of them to be able to say no although I recognise that would have consequences of its own.

interesting that a child has the right to withdraw the parent consent if they don't want the test, but in theory not the other way round

In law - as opposed to what schools may be doing in practice - it's the other way round. In theory, a competent child has the right to consent to treatments but not - via Gillick - the right to refuse. However, the courts have not enforced this distinction in practice.

Really, this is the bar for coercion. The pupil said no at the first request.
OP said that he said his mother said he wasn't to have one. He did not say no, himself.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

The child still has a right to not feel pressured to consent. The fact its not invasive and has no health implications is not relevant

That is true, but it applies as much to pressure from the OP as from his peers or the school. The OP has already admitted that her DS wasn't originally that bothered about having the test. It was she who insisted he shouldn't, even reminding him on the day.

No one who is saying the DS was coerced has been able to explain why it's ok for the OP to coerce him, but not the school.

I've stated that. It needs a sit down discussion between the school, the parent and the child to address whats going on and where pressure is being applied.

The key point here for me is that the child could have consented freely at school and then not told mum or told mum that this was his free decision. If the child decided to go against the parental consent the school clearly needed to support them in this and asserting their right to do this better - as there is reason to believe that this would produce some sort of conflict with the parent if for whatever reason they found out. This wasn't done. Why? Because free consent wasn't given or because the school neglected a particular duty of care?

The key point here is the following:

It sounds like the child came home, volunteered the information that they had been tested, they weren't happy about it and felt pressured. The child themselves complained about the way they had been treated.

This is the key information that should be focused on and the purpose of a complaint procedure here should be to assess why the child came home and said this.

We should be listening to the child and then going from there.

There needs to be a proper investigation as to what happened and changes made to ensure it doesn't happen again - regardless of who is to 'blame'.

Totally different scenario I know but years ago my dd badly damaged her arm causing all sorts of tendon and ligament issues. This happened on day 2 of the hols so by the time sept came her cast was off and she just looked like everyone else. Her elbow mobility was virtually non existent and there was a lot of physio going on. I sent a letter on day 1 of term saying I was exempt in her from PE for the next few weeks/months and explained why. That term the school (primary) hired an external sports coach, some kind of ex military bloke who said to my DD ‘you look fine you can do PE’ and made her join in. She was 8/9 and too timid to say mum says im not allowed to. they were practising cricket throwing and when she couldn’t do it properly he came up to her, said your arm needs to be straighter and physically straightened it! It still turns my stomach to think of the pain that caused her. I can’t even describe how angry I was and still am that the pe teacher totally disregarded my wishes assuming he knew my dd’s injury better than me. He had no right to force her, and physically too.
So in a long winded way op, YANBU! Whatever your reasons, consent wasn’t given.

@Applesonthelawn

I think the parallel to checking the whole class for nits is an excellent one. Minimally invasive check that all children should have to ensure it is effective for the majority. Do teachers have to ask for consent these days to check for nits? My youngest is now 19 and I don't recall being asked for consent when he was at a relevant age. The issue of "bullying" a 13 year old for consent is an entirely different one. It could be that the child felt compromised because he knew his parent did not wish him to have the test and that is why he perceived coercion rather than the force of a logical argument.

They don't check for nits now. So no consent issues relevant.

I've been told that schools can't even tell an individual child's parents they definitely have nits if they see them because of safeguarding. They can only send out a general 'there are nits in the class'. However if they persistantly see a child with nits and the parents don't do anything about it, they can report it elsewhere as a potential safeguarding concern with regards to neglect

Whether this is true across the country, I'm not sure but this certainly is the procedure at DS's school.

Its to do with how telling parents directly may put the child at risk of harm or single them out in a way that might be perceived as targeting / bullying them I think.