Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: MR MISTER on 12 October 2013, 11:17:06
-
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24493422
I just can't see how you can make a 15 year old have a vaccination that they do not want it. Imagine
how you would feel if it was forced upon one of your children, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue. I don't like this kind of intervention at all, although I can see the arguement for the 'greater good'.
-
They are obviously ill informed :-\
Refusing the jab on Vegan grounds is a non starter, as there was recently an issue (in Glasgow iirc) where muslim children refused the jab due to it containing gelatin derived from pork. That situation was resolved as there are readily available alternative vaccinations which contain no animal extracts...
It could be argued that, having been ordered twice previously, the mother is being deliberately difficult... suspect that the father is paying the legal bills :-X
-
Regardless of the rights and wrongs or what parents want, I can not see how a Judge can make such an order on a 15 year old, assuming she has 'Capacity' then she would be expected to give her opinion, if she says 'No' then this is her choice - even if her life was directly in danger.......... :)
-
Regardless of the rights and wrongs or what parents want, I can not see how a Judge can make such an order on a 15 year old, assuming she has 'Capacity' then she would be expected to give her opinion, if she says 'No' then this is her choice - even if her life was directly in danger.......... :)
That's the implications I was talking about, Mike. It's beyond the judges remit, I would have thought. If it was my kid I'd go all the way to the European courts, by which time the kid would be 27 with kids of her own. ;D
-
Steve, with respect you are overlooking the views of the children's father (who is behind the case). Imagine if you were separated/divorced form your wife. You would still have your children's best interests at heart and if you thought your ex was jeopardising their future health you would be furious and would want to do all you can to do the right thing by your offspring. The vast majority of professionals now believe that the MMR vaccine is safest way of preventing measles - which can have very serious consequences.
Pity the woman involved seems to have brainwashed them. I hope, for their sake, they never contract measles later in life. >:( >:(
-
Steve, with respect you are overlooking the views of the children's father (who is behind the case). Imagine if you were separated/divorced form your wife. You would still have your children's best interests at heart and if you thought your ex was jeopardising their future health you would be furious and would want to do all you can to do the right thing by your offspring. The vast majority of professionals now believe that the MMR vaccine is safest way of preventing measles - which can have very serious consequences.
Pity the woman involved seems to have brainwashed them. I hope, for their sake, they never contract measles later in life. >:( >:(
For the 15 year old they do not count, she is a person in her own right, assuming capacity, as posted, the 11 year old may be less straight forward........... :)
-
Steve, with respect you are overlooking the views of the children's father (who is behind the case). Imagine if you were separated/divorced form your wife. You would still have your children's best interests at heart and if you thought your ex was jeopardising their future health you would be furious and would want to do all you can to do the right thing by your offspring. The vast majority of professionals now believe that the MMR vaccine is safest way of preventing measles - which can have very serious consequences.
Pity the woman involved seems to have brainwashed them. I hope, for their sake, they never contract measles later in life. >:( >:(
For the 15 year old they do not count, she is a person in her own right, assuming capacity, as posted, the 11 year old may be less straight forward........... :)
I must disagree, Vamps. It's not as cut-and-dried as you allude:
There is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child “means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
In the UK, specific age limits are set out in relevant laws or government guidance.
...
...At what age should children's wishes be taken into account?
Most guidance relating to services for children (such as safeguarding and health care) stresses the importance of listening to the wishes of the child. However, the authorities have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, which may mean contradicting their wishes.
For instance, in England and Wales, section 53 of the Children Act 2004 amended section 17 and section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of the child as far as reasonable, before determining what services to provide or action to take.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/definition_of_a_child_wda59396.html#law (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/definition_of_a_child_wda59396.html#law)
"Parental right yields to the child’s right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision."
Since the Gillick case, legal, health and social work professionals continue to debate the issues of a child’s rights to consent or refuse treatment, and how to balance children’s rights with the duty of child protection professionals to act in the best interests of the child. Further court rulings, new legislation and revised guidance continue to amend the legal position.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html#How_are_the_Fraser_Guidelines_applied? (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html#How_are_the_Fraser_Guidelines_applied?)
-
Steve, with respect you are overlooking the views of the children's father (who is behind the case). Imagine if you were separated/divorced form your wife. You would still have your children's best interests at heart and if you thought your ex was jeopardising their future health you would be furious and would want to do all you can to do the right thing by your offspring. The vast majority of professionals now believe that the MMR vaccine is safest way of preventing measles - which can have very serious consequences.
Pity the woman involved seems to have brainwashed them. I hope, for their sake, they never contract measles later in life. >:( >:(
For the 15 year old they do not count, she is a person in her own right, assuming capacity, as posted, the 11 year old may be less straight forward........... :)
I must disagree, Vamps. It's not as cut-and-dried as you allude:
There is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child “means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
In the UK, specific age limits are set out in relevant laws or government guidance.
...
...At what age should children's wishes be taken into account?
Most guidance relating to services for children (such as safeguarding and health care) stresses the importance of listening to the wishes of the child. However, the authorities have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, which may mean contradicting their wishes.
For instance, in England and Wales, section 53 of the Children Act 2004 amended section 17 and section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of the child as far as reasonable, before determining what services to provide or action to take.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/definition_of_a_child_wda59396.html#law (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/definition_of_a_child_wda59396.html#law)
"Parental right yields to the child’s right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision."
Since the Gillick case, legal, health and social work professionals continue to debate the issues of a child’s rights to consent or refuse treatment, and how to balance children’s rights with the duty of child protection professionals to act in the best interests of the child. Further court rulings, new legislation and revised guidance continue to amend the legal position.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html#How_are_the_Fraser_Guidelines_applied? (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html#How_are_the_Fraser_Guidelines_applied?)
Of course not, on a saturday night on a car forum, and I don't know the 'facts' of the case, so I can only generalise; The Law becomes very complex and as you alluded to the wishes of the child must be considered....... ::)
As Steve said, are you going to 'pin down' a 15 year old girl to have an MMR jab, against her will............ I don't know any Doctor who would do this........ ;) ;)
And you certainly won't get a Psychiatrist to 'Section' her, no beds.......... :-X :-X
-
Of course not, on a saturday night on a car forum, and I don't know the 'facts' of the case, so I can only generalise; The Law becomes very complex and as you alluded to the wishes of the child must be considered....... ::)
As Steve said, are you going to 'pin down' a 15 year old girl to have an MMR jab, against her will............ I don't know any Doctor who would do this........ ;) ;)
And you certainly won't get a Psychiatrist to 'Section' her, no beds.......... :-X :-X
May I ask, did Miss Vamps have the MMR? If so, was that a joint decision between you and SWMBO?
Suppose that was not the case, however. If, hypothetically, you and SWMBO were now divorced/separated and Miss Vamps was still not innoculated due to SMBO's refusal, how would you feel?
Just asking... ;)
-
Of course not, on a saturday night on a car forum, and I don't know the 'facts' of the case, so I can only generalise; The Law becomes very complex and as you alluded to the wishes of the child must be considered....... ::)
As Steve said, are you going to 'pin down' a 15 year old girl to have an MMR jab, against her will............ I don't know any Doctor who would do this........ ;) ;)
And you certainly won't get a Psychiatrist to 'Section' her, no beds.......... :-X :-X
May I ask, did Miss Vamps have the MMR? If so, was that a joint decision between you and SWMBO?
Suppose that was not the case, however. If, hypothetically, you and SWMBO were now divorced/separated and Miss Vamps was still not innoculated due to SMBO's refusal, how would you feel?
Just asking... ;)
Yes, after brief discussion and consideration, as this was at the height of the scares, and we both said if one said no then so be it, but we both agreed, and we are not separated.... :y :y
Nickbat, this is a 'Power' thing between parents, see this all the time and the child simply becomes a pawn, my other comments stand....... :y :y
-
Yes, after brief discussion and consideration, as this was at the height of the scares, and we both said if one said no then so be it, but we both agreed, and we are not separated.... :y :y
Nickbat, this is a 'Power' thing between parents, see this all the time and the child simply becomes a pawn, my other comments stand....... :y :y
No, I know you're not, I was talking hypothetically. I don't believe this is de facto a "power thing". Measles is real and is potentially life-threatening. You cannot say suppose that this is just points-scoring on the part of the father. It may be, but equally it may be that the father has the child's best interests at heart. Neither you nor I know that. ;)
-
Yes, after brief discussion and consideration, as this was at the height of the scares, and we both said if one said no then so be it, but we both agreed, and we are not separated.... :y :y
Nickbat, this is a 'Power' thing between parents, see this all the time and the child simply becomes a pawn, my other comments stand....... :y :y
No, I know you're not, I was talking hypothetically. I don't believe this is a "power thing". Measles is real and is potentially life-threatening. You cannot say suppose that this is just points-scoring on the part of the father. It may be, but equally it may be that the father has the child's best interests at heart. Neither you nor I know that. ;)
You still miss the point, how are they going to give a reluctant 15 year old girl the injection? I am not arguing the benefits; my comments stand...... ;) ;)
-
She should have been given the jab after the first court order... The situation now is posturing pure and simple ::)
Should also be noted that her reluctance is on vegan grounds and not medical ones :y
-
She should have been given the jab after the first court order... The situation now is posturing pure and simple ::)
Should also be noted that her reluctance is on vegan grounds and not medical ones :y
How?..................
-
By making an appointment at her surgery like normal people ::) as said her objection is totally unfounded, as per my first post on Saturday morning :y
-
By making an appointment at her surgery like normal people ::) as said her objection is totally unfounded, as per my first post on Saturday morning :y
If 15 year old child refuses an injection how are you going to enforce it? where is the head banging smile?................. ::) ::) :-X
-
In custody if needed? Point is the refusal is unfounded and irrational. Three judges can't all be wrong ::)
-
In custody if needed? Point is the refusal is unfounded and irrational. Three judges can't all be wrong ::)
In whose Custody?
-
The courts, given that they've ordered it...
-
The courts, given that they've ordered it...
So who is physically going to give her the injection?.................. ::) ::)
-
A court appointed suitably qualified person ::)
And get someone to have a word with the mother about contempt...
-
Like I said, 'serious implications'. We're gonna tie kids down and stick pins in them now.
-
I have to say that this case scares me with its implications. does it now mean that if three learned judges decree, someone can now be forced to undergo a medical procedure against there will, albeit 'children' who supposedly do not have the power of rational thought, I find that perspective rather strange as most children i've met over the age of about 8/9 yrs know there minds quite well and are quite capable of making quite powerful decisions given the facts honestly !
-
Just another petulant teenager who needs a clip round the ear and told you will do it.
-
The judges decision is based on the ill informed stance of the mother and hence the daughters.
When asked "if on contraction of either M,M or R had they considered the ingredients of the vaccine" the social worker(?) had stated they did not. I presume this utterly pathetic line of text presumably from the journo, implies, that if taken ill they would want the vaccine ? (I presume it would then be too late) but the point being they did not consider themselves life or death vegans.
Surely the decision of the courts would over ride the idiotic position of half hearted vegans in the families minds and AGREE to the jab? and a mother using her children to cost her ex a fortune!
The mother should pay costs !
But more over, I really don't see why subjects such as this are needed on here Esta.
Unless its to watch devisions develop...? Somebody always gets ... How can I put it... "Overly passionate" ? about a subject. (Hopefully that's taken as not pointing at ANY individual/s)
It is GENERAL chat after all. Like a GP is a general practitioner. What this subject is asking for is a referral to a specialist. One more qualified than anyone here, perhaps?
-
The judges decision is based on the ill informed stance of the mother and hence the daughters.
When asked "if on contraction of either M,M or R had they considered the ingredients of the vaccine" the social worker(?) had stated they did not. I presume this utterly pathetic line of text presumably from the journo, implies, that if taken ill they would want the vaccine ? (I presume it would then be too late) but the point being they did not consider themselves life or death vegans.
Surely the decision of the courts would over ride the idiotic position of half hearted vegans in the families minds and AGREE to the jab? and a mother using her children to cost her ex a fortune!
The mother should pay costs !
But more over, I really don't see why subjects such as this are needed on here Esta.
Unless its to watch devisions develop...? Somebody always gets ... How can I put it... "Overly passionate" ? about a subject. (Hopefully that's taken as not pointing at ANY individual/s)
It is GENERAL chat after all. Like a GP is a general practitioner. What this subject is asking for is a referral to a specialist. One more qualified than anyone here, perhaps?
You do talk shite sometimes (most of the time). It's a general discussion area and, as such, I post things which I consider are of general interest. It's certainly a lot more interesting than your 20 page tomes on the minutiae of brakes or tyres. The very fact thst quite a few have replied is proof that most people find it interesting enough to comment (productively).
You are free to refrain, of course and, I for one, wish you would. You have very narrow interests, most of us do not.
-
Oh....and you are gay. ;D
-
See, bickering already. ;D
I think your level of Gayness is pretty clear, given your lack of control described on your other thread. :o
-
But I would add, my interest is in line with the reason for the forums existence.
Why don't you bog off to the Daewoo forum. :P
-
>:( This is all about the all powerful state apparatus being denied , but at least we live in a "free" country :-\
-
There are several "sides" to this ... some not mentioned ..
With freedom comes responsibility .. so who will take responsibility IF the worst happens and she falls ill and suffers either mental or physical disability ??
I would guess the Mother would very quickly demand full treatment and backup, and probably compensation in todays culture, so the State would end up with the responsibility and its associated costs - possibly over a very long time - is it therefore "unfair" for the same State to require preventative measures to be taken to reduce the impact of the illness ??
Further, should she fall ill she has the potential to spread the disease, and thus endanger others, does her "right to freedom" give her the right to endanger others ???
Where is the "responsibility" there ??
-
Just another petulant teenager who needs a clip round the ear and told you will do it.
Quite :-X
If they were that balanced in their understand of the jab and the implications of having it (or not), then there would be no need for this situation as either the children would have already had the jab, or been able to present a substantiated reason for not having it ::)
-
There are several "sides" to this ... some not mentioned ..
With freedom comes responsibility .. so who will take responsibility IF the worst happens and she falls ill and suffers either mental or physical disability ??
I would guess the Mother would very quickly demand full treatment and backup, and probably compensation in todays culture, so the State would end up with the responsibility and its associated costs - possibly over a very long time - is it therefore "unfair" for the same State to require preventative measures to be taken to reduce the impact of the illness ??
Further, should she fall ill she has the potential to spread the disease, and thus endanger others, does her "right to freedom" give her the right to endanger others ???
Where is the "responsibility" there ??
Either way we pick up the tab :-\
Seems to me that the mothers' view of responsibility is simply to her children and blocks to everyone else :-\
-
If people dont want a simple harmless jab that is necessary for everybodies public health then they can do one to a country where most people dont get the opportunity (I have been there and seen the effects) , instead of sneezing on my cornflakes >:(