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.

Yes true Sweetpea We were led to believe it was a slam dunk and the government were going to over ride the JCVI, but it has gone very quiet now so I am wondering if it really isn't as straight forward as first thought.

I am glad we at least have safeguards in place, and we have the best experts taking great time and deliberation over the approvals, it makes me feel much safer and inspires confidence. When the decision is made in favour - however long it takes - most parents can feel comforted by the process, and the careful collation of worldwide data, and are more likely to agree to vaccinate their children in the longer term. If we were rushing this critical decision, or some unqualified government minister was having the final say I would be most worried.

Not great for those wishing for their children to be vaccinated pronto though. At least they seem to have given the green light to children at risk though which is good, CEV children will now have the option to have a vaccine.

It’s disturbing that the state are taking away parental rights.

"20:35FreshFreesias

It’s disturbing that the state are taking away parental rights"

Yes. It is, however people will tell you differently. Things are changing unfortunately and it's up to us to challenge it.

Personally I don’t agree with vaccinating under 18s. But I don’t see this as some attack on parental rights.

Teenagers can and do make their own decisions on medical treatment every day if understand the process and consequences.

@FreshFreesias

It’s disturbing that the state are taking away parental rights.

Deeply disturbing yes.

What I find incredibly disturbing is that the government feel this valid or necessary.
What do they know that they think will cause so may parents to refuse consent?

Deeply disturbing yes.

What I find incredibly disturbing is that the government feel this valid or necessary.What do they know that they think will cause so may parents to refuse consent?

The vaccine hasn't been offered to this age group yet.

If it is, it's an offer, not mandatory.

As with other vaccines, if teenagers want to be vaccinated despite their parents not having the same decision, they can consent themselves. This is not indicative that the government know something terrible "that will cause so many parents to refuse consent".

If you happen to be in this position presumably you can have an open discussion with your teen and understand why they want to go ahead.

As I've said before, I'm wondering how many parents this is actually going to directly impact.

Let's just let them all go to school with bottles of Calpol in their bags and see how that goes shall we?! It's up to them if they want to take it isn't it?!

Parents should have the overall say as they are the ones going to be looking after a child if something goes wrong. You can't sue the drug company as they are immune from liability and the max £120k the gov will pay out won't go far.

[quote bumbleymummy]@AlixandraTheGreat I think the inclusion of ‘troponin’ in the lab findings was to filter results that were medically reported rather than patient self-reports.

It does tie in with the results found in the recent Canadian and Israel studies.[/quote]

Medically-reported adverse events are vastly outweighed by those by vexatious anti-vaxxers. It is now a useless system. It could have been a helpful one until it was hijacked.

@InexperiencedDogOwner

Let's just let them all go to school with bottles of Calpol in their bags and see how that goes shall we?! It's up to them if they want to take it isn't it?!

Why do you think that's the same as administering a controlled dose of a vaccine in an appropriate setting? Would you like to explain it a little further?

The state are doing nothing of the sort @FreshFreesias or @DoubleShotEspresso

The concept has been around for nearly 40 years, most of us could have if we wanted and it was deemed necessary have an abortion at 15 without parental consent, gone on the pill or consented to a blood transfusion. Just like our children

The fact that Sajid Javid decided to imply it could be used for the Covid vaccine doesn’t make the precedent itself wrong.

A legal challenge would be interesting as last years Bell case deemed puberty blockers not to fall into this remit so potentially who knows

@InexperiencedDogOwner the lowest age is 13 I am fairly sure that at that age calpol has been replaced by tablet form and it would be fairly easy for them to take medication at school

Covid always seems to skew perspectives on things

"01:40AlixandraTheGreat

bumbleymummy

@AlixandraTheGreat I think the inclusion of ‘troponin’ in the lab findings was to filter results that were medically reported rather than patient self-reports.

It does tie in with the results found in the recent Canadian and Israel studies.

Medically-reported adverse events are vastly outweighed by those by vexatious anti-vaxxers. It is now a useless system. It could have been a helpful one until it was hijacked"

So you just choose to ignore the information that is staring you in the face? Just because parents want to wait to give their children a jab that is under question at the moment, doesn't mean they are anti vaxxers.

So you just choose to ignore the information that is staring you in the face? Just because parents want to wait to give their children a jab that is under question at the moment, doesn't mean they are anti vaxxers.

I didn't say they were, @Peteycat. I was commenting on the VAERS report that Bumbley quoted. VAERS is indeed full of reports from anti-vaxxers. I was not commenting on people in in general re: the COVID jab and children. Apologies if you weren't able to understand that.

@InexperiencedDogOwner the lowest age is 13 I am fairly sure that at that age calpol has been replaced by tablet form and it would be fairly easy for them to take medication at school

The point is that they are not trusted to take something as simple and as safe (in the correct dose) as paracetamol, parental consent is required. Yet they are considered mature enough to make a decision on a vaccine in which they will only be given one sided information without parental consent.

Medically-reported adverse events are vastly outweighed by those by vexatious anti-vaxxers. It is now a useless system. It could have been a helpful one until it was hijacked.

This may be the case which is why they filtered them to try to restrict their data to medically reported events.

Just out of curiosity, we’re you as dismissive of the publications about the incidence of long covid in children that used data from the Zoe app?

Were*

@bumbleymummy

Medically-reported adverse events are vastly outweighed by those by vexatious anti-vaxxers. It is now a useless system. It could have been a helpful one until it was hijacked.

This may be the case which is why they filtered them to try to restrict their data to medically reported events.

Just out of curiosity, we’re you as dismissive of the publications about the incidence of long covid in children that used data from the Zoe app?

I can't say as I didn't look at it. However, as the Zoe app was primarily self-reported events, I likely wouldn't trust it as much as a study with formally-recruited participants that are followed carefully by lab and research staff.

I think the problem is @InexperiencedDogOwner is the Sajid Javid shouting his mouth of about this has muddied waters.

Schools CANNOT override parental consent - only medical professionals can. The ONLY time they can give any medication without parental consent is if it has been prescribed. In practice I suspect that any contraception prescribed without medical consent is not going to be needed to be given at school. Most medications can be taken at home and if a 13 year old wanted pain meds I cant imagine school would have to be involved.

Tattoos/piercings etc again are not medical professionals. Tattoo have to be over 18 no amount of parental consent could override that. Piercings actually doesnt have an age so it doesnt matter.

Now with the vaccine - it is a difficult one as to whether it would be deemed to be under Gillick Competency. As I have said Abortion is Puberty Blockers are not. Where this falls between the two I wouldn't like to say. That would I think be a matter for the courts. A case could be brought and it would be interesting to see. Although in practice the end result could be similar to Roe v Wade in that it is not needed by the time the decision has been made.

@bumbleymummy

As has been said to you before, the solution to bad science is not to respond with more bad science of your own.

VAERS/yellow card data should not be used as evidence of causality, no matter if another paper somewhere has also used poor quality methods.

[quote InexperiencedDogOwner]**@InexperiencedDogOwner the lowest age is 13 I am fairly sure that at that age calpol has been replaced by tablet form and it would be fairly easy for them to take medication at school

The point is that they are not trusted to take something as simple and as safe (in the correct dose) as paracetamol, parental consent is required. Yet they are considered mature enough to make a decision on a vaccine in which they will only be given one sided information without parental consent.[/quote]
Eh?

They are trusted to give their rationale as to why they want a paracetamol, and are then given the correct dose.

I think you'll find that if a teen says to a medical professional they need painkillers, and the medical professional agrees, they will be given them even if the parent for whatever reason wants to withhold medication.

Just because parents want to wait to give their children a jab that is under question at the moment

@Peteycat

The vaccine hasn't been offered to this age group yet. If it is, then it will no longer be "under question." It will also be an offer, not mandatory.

As with other vaccines, if teenagers want to be vaccinated despite their parents not having the same decision, they can consent themselves. This is not a new precedent specifically for the coronavirus vaccine.

If you happen to be in this position presumably you can have an open discussion with your teen and understand why they want to go ahead.
As I've said before, I'm wondering how many parents this is actually going to directly impact and how many are just using it as an argument against offering the vaccine to this age group in children.

I think you'll find that if a teen says to a medical professional they need painkillers, and the medical professional agrees, they will be given them even if the parent for whatever reason wants to withhold medication

olly that simply is not true. You don't seem to have even the lightest grasp about litigation and medicating children without consent. All of the schools we have attended throughout the seventeen years have always requested signed consent to give any medication to a child, if you sign to say no then your child will NOT be given painkillers, no matter how eloquent the request!
This is a basic safeguarding mechanism to ensure that children with allergies and severe allergies are not given life threatening medication/food and other substances that can make them seriously ill or potentially kill them.
The school nurse or matron will always check the child's record for consent before issuing any kind of medication.

You seem to speak as if you have a real handle on the complexities of law and consent, when in reality you have a poor grasp on the actual reality.

In all the papers today it has been confirmed that schools will not be vaccinating without consent. So I think that puts the argument to bed now anyway. Schools are not going to risk the outcome if a child dies from an enlarged heart because they ignored the consent or lack of are they! Think about it.

I said medical professional, not school @zenthoughtsonlythanks? It's right there in the quote you copied from my post.

I have written to our headmistress to ask her to clarify our school's position on vaccination and have received a confirmation that the school will remain neutral on the issue of vaccine, they understand the concerns of parents and will respect whatever decision the parents make. Moreover consent will absolutely be required should the vaccines become available for younger children (12+)
We have been asked to keep the school updated if our older children (16+) attend a walk in centre and receive a vaccination, as they keep records for all children and current vaccines.

Total non issue here. Very wise of the school to stay out of the fray.

olly Er, a school nurse IS a medical professional the last time I checked.