Parental Consent for Vaccine

[naughty40me]

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-12-to-15-year-olds-to-get-final-say-over-covid-jab-if-disagreement-with-parent-occurs-12401914

Not sure if link worked, never done it before.

Sajid Javid saying that parental consent for the vaccine won't be needed if the child decides to take it.

I am livid at this!

I have a 2DC 12 and 14. I really do not want them to have the vaccine.

I am going to have to sit and have a proper discussion with them.
Up to now, when it has been mentioned all my kids say is "but if we don't have the vaccine we won't be able to go to the cinema"...

I'm not anti vax. I've been double jabbed myself being over 40 with long term conditions and in the vulnerable category.

However, as the JCVI says, the benefit to healthy children in this age range is marginal.
I am worried about side effects, both short and long term.

I think vaccines should be a choice.
Those who want their children vaccinated should have that choice.
But those of us who don't should also have a choice.

I don't think my dc are capable of making a fully informed decision. They are children fgs.
They are having their heads filled with crap, making them watch Newsround every day in school for example.

I feel so strongly about this.
I honestly think they will end up making it a condition of school entry.

It's so wrong.

I know not many on here will agree but I for one am not happy about this at all.

I'm not sure that's exactly what he said, I heard some of this live this morning

It's the same with the flu vaccine - child consent overrules parent non consent

I would be quite happy for my ds to have it (he's 14).

Parental consent won’t be needed for children competent to decide for themselves. You say it should be a choice. I agree. Their choice (assuming they can competently make it).

That is exactly what Sajid Javid was saying according to the article.

The health secretary told Sky News consent will be sought from parents of 12 to 15-year-olds over COVID jabs as it has been "for decades", but that if a child is believed to be competent enough to make the decision themselves, they "will prevail".

This is actually true for any medical treatment though. Your DC's could request the pill, or decline life saving cancer treatment.

The JCVI advice is based purely on efficacy v. risk for the teens themselves, and makes no judgement on societal benefits.

It is a difficult one set down completely in the Gillick case and the idea of Gillick Competency. There is nothing in this for me that is different to the same age children getting contraception etc or having other control over it.

If you start having this as an exception then you are calling into question Gillick Competency and I dont think that they can.

It is clear though that it wont simply be you say no and your child says yes and they get it - the article sets out

Mr Javid added: "If there is a difference of opinion between the child and the parent then we have specialists that work in this area, the schools vaccination service. They would usually literally sit down with the parent and the child, and try to reach some kind of consensus.

For me it should be actually a joint decision between parent and child with sensible discussion. But ultimately the idea of Gillick Competence is such an important legal one that it does need to be followed in this instance

I am going to let my son decide and give consent if he wants to go ahead ( at the moment he doesn’t but he might change his mind) but I do object to the requirement for parental consent to be removed for this age group. That is not a precedent I support at all.
My understanding is that the argument is that 12- 15 year olds can consent for themselves if deemed to fully understand the risks but how can a 12 year old fully understand the risks if even the JCVI and adults in general don’t? We actually have no idea of future consequences. There maybe none but we don’t know that yet. So I can’t see how Gillick competency applies in this case?
It’s not like the original Gillick judgement which was to prevent pregnancy and childbirth, an obvious harm for a 13 year old girl. This doesn’t strike me as anywhere close to being the same argument.

I don't foresee anyone from the schools vax service having a "sit down with the parent and the child, and try to reach some kind of consensus"

Surely it will work like the HPV vaccine - if no parental consent is given it's up to the child to be deemed Gillick competent and for the child to consent

“ I think vaccines should be a choice.” It is but like other medical decisions if teenagers are considered to be competent to make the decision it’s their decision to make.

It would be an interesting court case if anyone took it on.
Can a child be deemed Gillick competent enough and fully informed to take a new vaccine for a novel virus where even the JCVI is unsure of the individual benefits to that particular age group, how could the child know more.
I don’t know, but would be interested in the legal arguments both sides.

@sashagabadon

I am going to let my son decide and give consent if he wants to go ahead ( at the moment he doesn’t but he might change his mind) but I do object to the requirement for parental consent to be removed for this age group. That is not a precedent I support at all. My understanding is that the argument is that 12- 15 year olds can consent for themselves if deemed to fully understand the risks but how can a 12 year old fully understand the risks if even the JCVI and adults in general don’t? We actually have no idea of future consequences. There maybe none but we don’t know that yet. So I can’t see how Gillick competency applies in this case? It’s not like the original Gillick judgement which was to prevent pregnancy and childbirth, an obvious harm for a 13 year old girl. This doesn’t strike me as anywhere close to being the same argument.

It is about the child being able to understand as if they were an adult - so in that sense a 12 year old I think does have as much of an understanding of the risks as you are right the JCVI and adults do. The fact is none of us do know what the future consequences are and if you base it on that you are in effect saying that no one can consent - if that makes sense.

We cant cherry pick whether they are competent to make their own decision or not

Children are not small adults though. Plus 12-15 are the years of puberty which does not apply to adults.
I am not completely against it and understand the disruption arguments but I am very anti removing parental consent and don’t agree with the Gillick arguments they are trying to use.

@sashagabadon

Children are not small adults though. Plus 12-15 are the years of puberty which does not apply to adults. I am not completely against it and understand the disruption arguments but I am very anti removing parental consent and don’t agree with the Gillick arguments they are trying to use.

Are you anti competent child choice in general or just in this case?

@naughty40me I'm with you.

Not anti-vax in general by any stretch of the imagination, but do NOT want my DC having this vaccine, with (for kids) its tiny benefit, known short term risks and unknown longer term risks, and very ambivalent and changing societal benefit more broadly.

If anyone tries to persuade and manipulate kids whose children do not consent into having this (as has already happened via the coercive and factually incorrect Newsround special), we must collaboratively fight back.

kids whose parents* do not consent. If the kids have kids, we have further concerns...

Is your concern that you feel your children are being coerced into agreement by the suggestion that they might not be able to go to the cinema etc if they don't have it? I can understand this, as consent through coercion or manipulation is not valid consent.

I strongly believe in competent children being able to make decisions for themselves, but I dislike the manipulative way that vaccine promotion has been handled, for adults as well as children.

Tbf, it's quite difficult for us adults to meet criteria for giving fully informed consent to this vaccine, with the changing information and lack of long term data. For kids, with their lives ahead of them, immature frontal lobes and susceptibility to peer pressure, it's a potential disaster.

I just don't see how they can justify it.

There is no immediate harm as with pregnancy, childbirth etc.

The medical benefits are marginal. The full risks are unknown.

The balance of risk for myself was outweighed and being a single parent I wanted to protect myself and my children from me being hospitalised, (or at least try to protect myself).

The argument is entirely different for the children in terms of medical benefit v risk.

So they are competent and can consent to this but they can't go see a 15 rated film with their mates? Or buy cigarettes?

There are many age restricted things and that is for the child's own protection.

Why doesn't that apply here?

I also don't think the vaccination teams will "sit down with the parents" ....that wont happen, they're overwhelmed as it is right now.

My son missed his DTP and I rang and was told how busy they were and they would add him to this year's list. The lady on the phone sounded exhausted by it all.

Could you do two lists - pros and cons - with your kids?

Purple, it depends how obviously. With regards health, schooling, how long he spends on fortnight etc , I am in charge. I am the parent. It’s my job.
With regards some other things hobbies etc, friends he makes, what he wears at the weekend my son can decide.
Surely most parents decide this balance? I’ve been a parent for twenty years now and have made countless decisions about this and that and signed countless parent consent forms over the years.
And often for much less important decisions than this!

This isn't unique to the covid jab. It applies to all kinds of healthcare decisions - if the child is considered Gillick competent then they can consent.

@CorrBlimeyGG

Is your concern that you feel your children are being coerced into agreement by the suggestion that they might not be able to go to the cinema etc if they don't have it? I can understand this, as consent through coercion or manipulation is not valid consent.

I strongly believe in competent children being able to make decisions for themselves, but I dislike the manipulative way that vaccine promotion has been handled, for adults as well as children.

Yes it's exactly that.

As I say, it's been mentioned now and again as things came on the news but now its getting real and I feel I'm going to have a battle on my hands.

The school/government telling them one thing and me telling them another.

If they gave them a leaflet with a list of true benefits and true risks and then they decide, then maybe.

But as it is its all persuasion. I've had bad effects from the vaccine and part of me wishes I hadn't bothered.

I know lots of people who have had bad reactions, and Dr's are putting it down to a "coincidence".

I just don't feel comfortable with my dc having the covid vaccine. Wish they weren't in this age bracket, it's so difficult.

[quote Squleamish]@naughty40me I'm with you.

Not anti-vax in general by any stretch of the imagination, but do NOT want my DC having this vaccine, with (for kids) its tiny benefit, known short term risks and unknown longer term risks, and very ambivalent and changing societal benefit more broadly.

If anyone tries to persuade and manipulate kids whose children do not consent into having this (as has already happened via the coercive and factually incorrect Newsround special), we must collaboratively fight back.[/quote]
Totally agree. It's not on at all.

There is an interesting legal question here. Gillick Competency and the issue of consent in healthcare focuses on the health risks and benefits to the individual. But children are potentially being asked to have a vaccine for the benefit of society, not for their individual wellbeing.

I don't for a minute think you'd find a legal professional to take such a case, as they'd be branded as an anti vaxxer. But I can see an argument that this is outside the reach of Gillick.

Not hard to google the legal position on this - www.clarkewillmott.com/news/who-decides-whether-my-child-receives-a-covid-19-vaccination/

If Covid passports are a concern of theirs, have you considered advising them to wait until they become reality ?

Advising a teen to wait until they are older (say 17/18) is a possibility that you might want to consider?