Teenagers 'should be given MMR jab'

Apologies if this has already been posted, please delete if necessary....I did do a search.

Okay, now that's out of the way....

I couldn't believe it when I read this on Yahoo today...

A 15-year-old girl and her 11-year-old sister should receive the MMR vaccination, against the wishes of the youngsters and their mother, a High Court judge has ruled.

Yep, you read correctly, it's all to do with a decision taken by the parents many years ago not to vaccinate, now the marriage hads broken down, the father has sought legal action to force immunisation onto his daughters, because...

The father told the court that he was a "reluctant participant in the joint decision not to inoculate", said the judge.

To see all of the article please click here

Now I don't now about you folk, but this all smells of acrimonious break up at its worst, sure it's never easy when a realtionship breaks down and sure the girls quite possibly are against the jab because their mother has imprinted her view onto them, but surely this is a step too far?

One of them is 15, I know at 15, if I didn't want something, it wasn't going to happen, so good luck forcing this injection to happen.

Of course, there is only limited information supplied in the article, which means making a balanced judgment impossible, but based on what I've read, I think the ruling is the stuff of nightmares.

What say you?

If the parents are in disagreement, then a court must decide. And it's obvious which way the court is going to decide when it comes to children of this age. It's a nasty situation, but what can be done?
I don't like the courts being brought into this, because it sets precedent. And more often than not, laws eventually get written based on precedent.

I dont quite get this

i mean put aside the whole court thing

At 15 even though not technically a Adult, this teenager would have the right to refuse the vaccine or request it with out parental consent, I dont think there is even a explicit need for parents to be informed. Its a bit like a 15 year old girl asking for the pill, parents don't have to be informed of that.


Makes me think that there as to be a little more too this than is being reported in the media.

The child in this instance could still say "no i don't want it" or say "yes i do want it" regardless of what the court say.

Kalimera,

I wish I could say I'm shocked by this but no...

Bill gates vaccine 120 Arrested for Refusing Polio Vaccine in Niger:

healthimpactnews.com... ine/

Coming soon to a theatre near you.

-Amitaba-

reply to post by solargeddon


I couldn't access the link, but in the UK children over 12 are deemed to be more or less able to give medical consent themselves without the need for adult involvement. How on earth did this get to court? As far as I know a court could not insist that anyone of that age have a medical procedure against their wishes.

Valid point!

At 15 it is indeed far more likely that you would go into the doctors surgery without a parent, plus you are entitled to confidentiality.

I guess she could just go in and refuse to let the doctor inject her.

As one of you pointed out, the article is not comprehensive of the situation, there may be mitigating circumstances why the childrens feeling would not be taken into account....perhaps they have special needs?

OtherSideOfTheCoin
I dont quite get this

i mean put aside the whole court thing

At 15 even though not technically a Adult, this teenager would have the right to refuse the vaccine or request it with out parental consent, I dont think there is even a explicit need for parents to be informed. Its a bit like a 15 year old girl asking for the pill, parents don't have to be informed of that.


Makes me think that there as to be a little more too this than is being reported in the media.

The child in this instance could still say "no i don't want it" or say "yes i do want it" regardless of what the court say.

edit on 12-10-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Good post and most certainly correct.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Klassified


Personally, I think it is the nature of the fact that the father would bring this to court, don't get me wrong both of my children have had their MMR, but there are many who haven't, without any complications to their lives.

In fact, I caught German measles at 10, despite having been vaccinated against, it didn't adveresly affect me, but when it came to my second pregnancy, the rubella vaccine I had been given after having contracted german measles showed that I was no longer immune, I was 28 at the time, so you see, it isn't life-long immunity you get from having these vaccines either.

For me, it is the worst kind of petty, that one parent chose to create a storm at such a late stage over the issue, even without all of the facts, how long is it before we have the courts intervening in one parents favor over who gets custody of their childs teddy bear!

Apples and oranges I know, but crazier things have happend

beansidhe
reply to post by solargeddon

 

I couldn't access the link, but in the UK children over 12 are deemed to be more or less able to give medical consent themselves without the need for adult involvement. How on earth did this get to court? As far as I know a court could not insist that anyone of that age have a medical procedure against their wishes.

Apologies, I couldn't alter the original post, so here is an alternative link to view here

Sorry about that.

reply to post by solargeddon

I agree with you. I'm not a big fan of immunizations and vaccines myself. I had these childhood illnesses, and I'm just fine. Really. LOL!
This "father" is doing whatever he can to punish his ex, is what it sounds like. But of course, it's always the kids who suffer the most.

In my opinion, the 15 year old should be able to decide for herself. Unfortunately, the 11 year old isn't going to be seen as able to make that determination.

reply to post by solargeddon


Thank you, I appreciate that.
Looks like I'm wrong - a court can order immunisation. That's a scary thing. In this instance I'm torn, because having experience of the effect rubella, measles and mumps can have on unborn children I would have to advocate for vaccination.
And like the lawyer said, enforcing the ruling is going to be very difficult for both the girls, because even though the youngest is 11 it can be argued that she is mature enough to make an informed consent. The girls can vote with their feet and refuse to attend a surgery to have the procedure.
Maybe they are both pawns in some hideous, acrimonious divorce.
Either way if, as the article states, this is the third time a ruling of this type has come to court, a precedent has been set and that is no good thing.
Thanks for posting this, really interesting x

The court should have upheld the original decision to NOT vaccinate. Why? Because even though the father is NOW claiming that he was an unwilling participant in the decision, he did stay in the marriage and did not force the issue at that time. Now all these years later his feelings are hurt and he is trying to hit her where it hurts the most. It's a decision made out of spite at this point IMO and for a judge to rule in his favor is idiocy.

He let it ride years ago, he should let it ride now. It wasn't a deal breaker and shouldn't be used as a "weapon" now.