I have declined the HPV vaccine for my daughter - school nurse demands I give reasons why - is this legal?

[TimeIsAnIllusion]

I have declined the HPV vaccine for my daughter. Do I have to explain the reasons why on the form? I received a telephone call from the school nurse saying I must but I don't wish to explain myself. If the vaccine is offered I have a right to decline surely - so must I give a good enough reason to decline?

I don't know who the information will be passed on to and how my reasoning will be judged or considered. I just want to politely and quietly take the "no thanks" option without being pressed as to why.
By the way I my dd has had all other childhood vaccines but it's this particular one I'm not happy for her to have.

The OP knows her daughter best - she has her answer in that she doesn't want to disclose her reasons and she doesn't have to. If I were. You I'd step aside OP as this thread always gets heated.

BUT, before you go, let me tell you what happended to my DD when she had her first hPV vaccine at 14 ( I think - she was in the first year of the regular programme).

She had a severe reaction to the 'event' - I don't know if it was the process or the vaccine itself, and neither does our doctor nor the hospital paediatrician. She had a neurological reaction which left her un

OP, apologies but I haven't read the full thread. However, IME, you have only to mention the word 'anaphylaxis' and and no-one will go near you with a needle, even if you want them to

I've found that even GPs are very reluctant to give me immunisations, advice is always to be in a hospital setting. Certainly there was no question of ever having jabs in school.

I haven't read all replies sorry. I had the HPV vaccine when it first came out (I was 15/16). I have since developed a condition called Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome. I can barely walk some days.

I never thought the HPV vaccine was to blame for my POTS, and I'm still not sure that it is. There have been several studies conducted which say there is a link between having the vaccine and developing POTS.

Might be worth a google to make your own mind up about it whether you think they're linked or not; I'm still undecided. POTS is a complicated illness, with many causes, so I don't think they'll ever be able to say for certain if the vaccine IS responsible for my POTS. However, there is no other obvious cause for my illness.

Sorry if that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

pressed button too soon!

...unable to walk or talk which took the best part of two days to wear off.

however` she then had the two follow up jabs when she was 17 under medical supervision with no reaction. before that, we were advised not to take the risk.

so later rather than sooner is better for some girls

Why aren't boys vaccinated against HPV?

You are under no legal obligation to state your reasons. However, to reduce the risk that they will find a way to stick her with the needle anyway, it may be wise to say that your reasons are due to medical history.

If there is a serious risk of allergy, I am assuming you could find a way to have her vaccinated in a hospital (although you may have to pay for this).

Hakluyt pleading from a random person on mumsnet is unlikely to sway my much researched and long thought out reasons to avoid this vaccine at the moment. I'm sure you mean well based on your life experience.

You may do your own reasearch based on your own family medical history and make your own decisions for your family. You do not have all the reasons I have nor the medical records for my family in order to make an informed choice for my daughter.

gosh, contact that sounds really scary. And now I'm going to have to go and google that in case its related to the tale I've just told.

for my DD, they reported her symptoms up to the national database but I'm not sure what happened after that (re advising on side effects).

But, as i say, the second two jabs caused no reactions at all.

i also have an older DD who was offered it at 18 and refused. I'm hoping she will rethink this very soon as its still not too late for her to be protected. 18 or even 20 is not always too late, to those who are advising earlier rather than later.

Tweasles, I wonder if your friend's DD also has POTS? The two are often misdiagnosed, or appear together. It does seem strange. I hope she feels well enough to continue a normal life very soon.

Iirc, I was in perfectly good health on the days I had the vaccines.

Wow - so many people trying to tell the OP she is wrong to turn down a non compulsory vaccine when all she wanted to know was why she should be forced to give a reason for turning it down.

Crazy.

Not scaremongering at all. This is what happened. It scared me and gave me doubts about giving the vaccine to an UNWELL child especially without parental consent.

I am not a fan of anecdotal evidence which is why I was clear to say it is likely coincidence and no link has been proven.

The issue is that this school issued the vaccine without parental consent. That is what scared me. I have no interest in scaring others and I apologise if I have.

To reassure anyone the mother in question allowed her younger daughter to have the vaccine as she absolutely believes the long term illness was due to DD1 being unwell at the time, not with the vaccine itself.

Anything that prevents women from cervical cancer is a good thing but the health authorities need to provide an alternative to mass vaccination in schools for those children who cannot have it on the day and schools need better systems in place to ensure no one is given the vaccine without informed consent.

And in answer to the original question I do think you should have to give a reason why you are not consenting. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask.

ContactIssue thanks I will encourage my friend to look into it. Hope you are ok

I just think this particular one is a decision the girl concerned should make. Yes, if she is anaphylactic then she probably shouldn't have it at school- but then if she is, then she will know it and will be able to say for herself. And I see no reason why that reason shouldn't go down on the form.

The problem with leaving it til later is that,while I am sure we all hope are children are not sexually active very early, many undeniably are. So for many "later" would mean "too late".

CateBlanket in Australia and the USA they do vaccinate boys too - that's maybe why in those nations they are starting to see an overall reduction of the two HPV strains the vaccine protects against. The beginnings of herd immunity.

Until we vaccinate our boys too as routine that won't happen. Perhaps it is an NHS cost issue as to why they have focused the marketing of the vaccine as a protector against cervical cancer (something boys don't get!) and only vaccinated girls.

Studies have shown boys more prone to contracting oral cancers preceded by HPV than girls so it should benefit boys to be vaccinated too - plus then you have a chance of gaining herd immunity.

I believe the NHS plans to introduce the vaccine for boys too in the future.

I don't fully understand why the nhs chose to vaccinate girls only to start with and to market the vaccine specifically for "cervical cancer".

The best way to protect yourself is smear tests.

"The best way to protect yourself is smear tests."

Smear tests don't "protect"!

They catch changes in cells.

I have HPV. I have had dysplasia and LEETZ treatment. I have had a child die of cancer.

I will not be giving my child this series of vaccines.

I have done a huge amount of research into HPV and even donated my biopsy samples to research and made a decision.

To be frank this thread and the level of scolding astounds me, especially in comparison to other vaccine threads on here.

I think it might be because this virus is linked to cancer. The very word gets people's backs up.

I might consider the vaccine as offered in other countries, but not the series offered here.

Tweasels I feel it would take me writing a thesis as to why it doesn't suit us to vaccinate our daughter currently. We have researched the vaccine, it's safety record, the statistics, also taking into account people who have experienced the vaccine.

We have considered our family medical history (which includes raised ige counts, eczema, asthma, anaphylaxis, Crohn's disease amongst other anomalies - yes we really should not have been allowed to breed !) and the possibility / probability our child would be at risk of death from any of the cancers or HPV which are being protected against in this vaccine and decided upon balance we chose not to proceed at present.

It's very complex to explain all our concerns and get someone to see the whole picture not just keep saying 'most people are fine with it' - throw caution to the wind! It can often be many years before further recommendations are made as to who the medicines may not be suitable for - after it's been in circulation a while. The HPV vaccine is a relatively new vaccine.

I'm sure most people with average immune systems will be fine with this vaccine!

In our family people have immune systems prone to overreacting to non harmful things in a way that are non compatible with life (anaphylaxis) and we have immune systems which attack themselves too (Crohn's disease). Every single family member I can think of has an allergy of sorts (not just an intolerance) many have asthma and eczema too - these issues go back generations. Some family members carry adrenaline. These problems are on my daughters paternal and maternal sides of the family.

Time, you do not need to justify yourself or your reasons. Truly, you just don't see this level of scorn or pleading on threads about other vaccines on MN. I think it is because this one is associated with cancer.

You say no based on research her parents have done and then let them know that no means no.

hakluyt it may surprise you to learn that smear tests do protect - by picking up changes in cervical cells so these may be dealt with before they go on to form cancer. Therefore they can protect you from going on to develop cancer.
Cervical smears are extremely important and even if you have had the HPV vaccine you should still get regular smear tests. The HPV vaccine will help protect also but the smear tests are proven to be more effective than the HPV vaccine alone at preventing the development of cervical cancer from abnormal cell changes and for treating cancer early if discovered. Having an HPV vaccine does not guarantee you won't get HPV or cervical cancer though it should reduce your risks.

Thank you rainbowinmyroom for your kind words. I think I have got sucked into a negative vortex here and its time I went and did something more fun with my day! The sun is shining and the world awaits me!

in that case TimeIs I would just state the reason as "risk outweighs benefit. and in your situation I wouldn't vaccinate either. Not for this.

I just think a reason should be given of the off chance a parent is refusing the vaccine without good reason or like someone else up thread said through a concern that can be easily reassured.

I wonder if there will be a reduction in uptake of Smear tests among the young women who've has the HPV vaccine. They might think they are immune??

This thread has gone off on two tangents: the OP has said she wants to know her legal requirements regarding declining a medical proceedire vis a vis a public health vaccine, and wonders if she could just state that she's declining it, without having to break confidentiality of her Dds medical history.

And in reply to that are the posters who are accusing her of being suspicious and precious. Some even going as far as telling her that she doesn't care about her dd catching cervical cancer- tsk tsk... Take it easy!

And also it's kicked off a rather emotive discussion about the vaccine, and promiscuity.

Fwiw, I'm not in the UK, and here, we have a free, every two year, cervical screening programme for every woman in the country over 24. So every two years you get your letter, and you go in for a smear for free. This catches the cancer early, and imvho is a far better use of the health budget, than using a relatively new vaccine which offers limited cover - and worse, a sense of confidence that it's a cure all for ever (and so no smears are required).

Based on my research, the vaccine doesn't offer life long immunity. It's only offered to young girls, with the point being that they are too irresponsible to use condoms at this point, and the vaccine covers the years where they are deemed too clueless to use condoms/ drunk/ at greater risk of rape.
Fwiw, this vaccine is offered here for free at 16 yo to cover the late teen early 20 promiscuous period.

Not every country thinks very early teens are sexually active, and I think it's interesting that the vaccine is offered at a later stage here. I'm assuming that due diligence is done here, and the statistics of sexual activity amongst young 12 to 16 yo Irish children is lower than that in the UK.

There is research to show that immunising boys only/ as well might be better policy as they carry it, and have more partners - feminists believe that girls and women bear too much of the burden of preventative health and contraception already.

This vaccine attracts a lot of attention from right wing pearl clutchers, especially in the more Puritanical US who believe it gives some kind of perverse permission to young people to go out and make the beast with two backs willy nilly, and I suppose you have to take religious opinions into consideration with public health matters. They can't be dismissed with a snort into your frappé. These are real concerns by real people (no matter how wrong you consider them to be), and we have to find a solution with what we have here.

OP, I would simply state that it doesn't suit at this time, and your Dds health is under the care of her own GP.