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 absolutely support the right of teenagers to choose to take vaccines.

I have a friend whose parents are antivaxxers. As a teen she was offered the HPV vaccine and they declined on her behalf (home Ed came into it so they never even told her). She would have taken it, given the choice. Now she has HPV and will need a smear every year for many years, and that's in the best case where nothing develops. She is devastated that they could have prevented her having to live with this fear and chose not to.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

delete

We don't know the covid vaccine isn't life changing, as there is no data yet. It can cause fatal side effects, that is known and fully acknowledged (myocarditis)
So I would say it could be a life changing decision for some children, and possibly more children in the long term. We need to proceed with caution and the very fact the JCVI have not recommended it for children is further evidence that we do not know the long term impact of the vaccine on children. So ideally we would wait for more information.

Parental consent is essential.

The HPV vaccine can have serious side effects if you are allergic. So can the contraceptive pill. Under 18-s can still consent to both.

@iloverunningslow

I absolutely support the right of teenagers to choose to take vaccines.

I have a friend whose parents are antivaxxers. As a teen she was offered the HPV vaccine and they declined on her behalf (home Ed came into it so they never even told her). She would have taken it, given the choice. Now she has HPV and will need a smear every year for many years, and that's in the best case where nothing develops. She is devastated that they could have prevented her having to live with this fear and chose not to.

Around 80% of people have hpv at some point in their lives and many don’t even realise. Our bodies will clear it without us even knowing. The vaccine should never replace regular smear tests.

More downplaying of the importance of vaccination @bumbleymummy?

Don't think anyone was suggesting HPV vaccination should replace regular smear tests, simply that if you are infected with one of the strains known to cause cancer, you become more high risk and therefore require them more frequently.

Vaccination has a huge impact in terms of preventing cervical cancer. Just because "80% of people have HPV at some point in their lives and don't even realise" this does not negate the fact that some strains are carcinogenic and increase the risk of genital/anal/oropharynx cancer in you and your sexual partners.

I still cannot get over my council using this gem

@vintagenurse

I'm a nurse who has been working in the covid centres and I've just completed the training to do the school based imms. They are fully expecting and planning to be offering covid jabs for 12-15 cohort. So to address a few things that have been mentioned -

The consent forms will need to be returned a week before. This is because the jabs will need to be ordered the week before. They way Pfizer is licenced at the moment means once it is delivered to the school, it can no longer make another journey and will need to be used or thrown. Therefore the precise number of vials will be ordered. Nurses are not allowed to approach children with no consent and offer it to them. If a child has not had consent and seeks the nurses out, then they will be fully assessed using gillick competency. However, the team is not expecting this to happen often in reality and it will likely be the case there won't be any spare vaccines anyway, due to the ordering issues.

If a child has had consent but is standing in front of me crying and refusing to have it - I would not give it and I don't think any nurse would.

Hope this is helpful

This is helpful thank you and I really appreciate your post.

But I am also worried that school staff will be putting pressure on children (though I take your point about the number of vials being the same as the number of consent forms saying yes).

Sajid Javid has also made it sound as if it will be easy for children to override their parents’ decision.

The JVCI will very much have been saying no for valid reasons, not all of which we we will be aware of, so the idea that the government is now going to override their decision appalls me.

@changeyourname11111 government ministers talk in sound bites.

Sajid Javid is clearly aware of Gillick Competence but isn't aware of how health professionals go around implementing.

If a 12-15 year old really wanted any vaccine when their parents said "No" then the teen would have to find a way to get it themselves without involving their school, which would help illustrate their Gillick Competence.

Often the theoretical side of law and how it is implemented in practice are distinctly different.

Gillick Competency is widely seen as being 13 anyway - so 12 year olds are out. 12-13 year olds are likely to have similar views to parents anyway.

So realistically its 15 year olds (year 11) who this is for - who yes probably are capable of making an informed decision if (as is seen in practice) 16 year olds are who have been capable of making this decision now for a few weeks.

Then you can imagine the numbers of 15 year olds who want it but their parents refuse to help I imagine would be flagging this up before it comes to them being delivered in school. I think @RedMarauder is right in that these 15 year olds would be trying to get it themselves - although I think involving the school before it the day would been a good starting point to get their views raised.

So this notion that schools are going to put pressure on I think is never going to happen. School staff are well used to managing these kind of things and frankly this whole thing is going to be such a massive pain for them to organise and then having the right number of vials etc to store that the last thing they are going to be thinking is can I pressure Rosie in Year 9 to get a vaccine.

But I as I said I think you may well get some Year 11s who have an opinion different to their parents who views have to be taken into account.

It is also interesting though how COVID skews so much. Gillick Competency and Fraser Guidelines are necessary and really do enable particularly 15 year olds to get proper sexual health and does allow for medical professionals to take into account viewpoints if they differ. Just because the vaccine is a far more complicated beast shouldn't detract from the fact it is a vital legal precedent that has been somewhat politicised by Sajid Javid

vintagenurse Thank you for that post, most helpful. So really this is being rolled out like every vaccine, with parental consent as it should.

I can really understand why parents would be worried about this vaccine, given it does not have the support from the JCVI and has not been used for very long. It is fair enough. It is not like a normal vaccine like mumps etc that has been used for a very long time.

Sajid appears to me a like a man seriously out of his depth in the role as health secretary. He is making all kinds of mistakes, kids vaccinations is just another to add to the list.

delete I don't think there would be many GPs signing off contraception for children at twelve years old either! It would be a serious safe guarding risk regardless of Gillick Competency.

@Quartz2208 it can be younger than 15.

Over the years I've had discussions with GPs about this and it does depend on the mental maturity of the individual teen.

GPs and other health professionals deal with a lot of social fallout. They rather have a teen on birth control than deal with them having a baby.

With vaccines, unless there is a local spike in cases, a year or twos wait while not good shouldn't cause an issue. For example when there have been measles spikes they tell unvaccinated adults to get vaccinated.

@RedMarauder I am sure it can - but never really younger than 13 I would not have thought. But yes the social fallout is exactly why it is such an important thing to have

I just think practically with this vaccine it is likely that you are probably looking at the 15 year olds who may well have a different view to their parents. I cant see it really be used though.

It's interesting the posters worried that schools will be pushing propoganda and pressurising kids to have the vaccine, seem quite happy to say "you shouldnt have it cus both me and your aunty doreen had side effects"
And that apparently is not pressurising them or peddling false propoganda.
If your child is gillick competent they can decide for themselves. If as a parent you have concerns maybe provide your young person with the facts not just your opinion.
I have already vaccinated lots of 16-18 Yr olds whose parents were unhappy about it... Generally in this country we do seem to be under the impression children /young people are the property of their parents and have no autonomy.
It has been a shock to some parents when I have explained gillick competency, and that it isn't just related to getting contraception

I don't think anyone is suggesting a 16 year old isn't capable of making up their own mind, I think most draw a line at a twelve year old though! Theredjellybean

The fact they are only wanting this group vaccinated to make up the adult anti vaxxer shortfall, as there is no real benefit to the child - is questionable given it won't even stop the spread of covid in schools.

If it does get approved, I’m curious how many kids will get vaccinated. Most people I speak to seem to saying their kids won’t be getting vaccinated or they’re not sure and that’s mainly parents who have been vaccinated themselves.

somany Same here. Also a large number of our dc have already had covid this summer, so a vaccine is a bit pointless, as they have antibodies already.
Many parents seem to be taking a wait and see approach. All pro vaccine around here, all double vaccinated, but there is definitely not the same support for dc vaccination.

Nope, olly, just stating facts.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

“The fact they are only wanting this group vaccinated to make up the adult anti vaxxer shortfall, as there is no real benefit to the child - is questionable given it won't even stop the spread of covid in schools.”

I don’t think it is for that reason though. They’ve recognised that this won’t actually do much for transmission. I think it’s the ‘school disruption’ angle that’s being pushed at the moment but if they changed the testing/isolation rules then that would be as much of an issue either.

I think it’s the ‘school disruption’ angle that’s being pushed at the moment

But you can still catch covid if vaccinated so I don't see how they can push the disruption angle, as disruption will happen with or without the kids being vaccinated.

So if the vaccine doesn't change the spread of covid, or the disruption to education, if it doesn't stop you catching the virus and being ill what is the point in vaccinating children? They only have mild covid illness at best anyway. So the benefits are not there for most kids (only CV kids)

As @bumbleymummy says, “it’s the ‘school disruption’ angle that’s being pushed at the moment […] but if they changed the testing/isolation rules then that would be as much of an issue either.”

I wonder if this will happen pretty soon actually. Perhaps changed to guidance rather than mandated or something.

I suspect ministers will take to heart the concerns of the small number of parents and worry that it may polarise an large cohort of otherwise quite happy voters. It’s a big thing to ride roughshod over parental concerns.

The gotcha might be the teaching union, but I don’t expect most parents or teachers to put up too much of a fight.

Oh, I agree with you that it doesn’t make any sense. I guess people will just put a lot of emphasis on the ‘less likely’ argument and keep ignoring that a high percentage of children are already immune so shouldn’t need to be disrupted by lots of isolation periods anyway.

But you can still catch covid if vaccinated so I don't see how they can push the disruption angle, as disruption will happen with or without the kids being vaccinated.

So if the vaccine doesn't change the spread of covid, or the disruption to education, if it doesn't stop you catching the virus and being ill what is the point in vaccinating children?

It wouldn't make sense if vaccination didn't impact infection or transmission, but it does, hence why it is considered an important factor in this age group.

Vaccination significantly reduces your chances of infection and transmission (demonstrated in several studies by mechanisms such as reducing viral load (REACT-2) and shortening the time window of which you are infectious).

A group of vaccinated individuals will be infected and transmit coronavirus substantially less than unvaccinated, hence why it would play a role in reducing disrupted schooling.

I see the false dichotomy of "either it has to stop it 100% or it's useless" is still alive and well though!

Vaccination significantly reduces your chances of infection and transmission

So does previous infection but they’re not taking that into account.

@bumbleymummy

Oh, I agree with you that it doesn’t make any sense. I guess people will just put a lot of emphasis on the ‘less likely’ argument and keep ignoring that a high percentage of children are already immune so shouldn’t need to be disrupted by lots of isolation periods anyway.

"less likely" is exactly how health interventions work.

There are barely any examples of a medical intervention in complex disease where risk is reduced to 0%

@bumbleymummy

Vaccination significantly reduces your chances of infection and transmission

So does previous infection but they’re not taking that into account.

A previous infection does not equal "immunity"

We are nowhere near 100% of kids having a previous infection

None of these factors are reasons to deny children (especially those whose previous infection status is unknown) the offer of a vaccine.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily equal immunity either though but we accept that as ‘proof of immunity’/proof of decreased risk of transmission.

Recent supports suggest around 50%. So that is potentially 50% of children whose benefit-risk would be tilted away from the benefit. It will be interesting to see the most recent ons antibody survey from the end of last term. I think it’s due to be released this month.