How to persuade a child to take a blood test

aliasojo

Dunroamin wrote: »

If it's so bloody personal, why drag it into the discussion then?

You do this sort of thing all the time and it gets really annoying.

Shoot me. :rotfl:

I really shouldn't have to explain this, I would have thought you were able to work it out for yourself but hey ho.......I only posted it as a response to ailuro who had a daughter who also didn't want the jab.

That's why I 'dragged' it into the discussion. (Bit dramatic there Dunroamin but never mind, you can use whatever terminology you want, it's your perogative. )

Do you seriously think that me posting a comment about a decision made, gives you the right to ask for details of a personal conversation between two people and then get antsy when you're told you're not getting them? :rotfl:

Sorry if I annoy you, maybe best just ignore me now then eh? :rotfl:

Person_one

She's got a point, its a bit 'off' to post something so obviously controversial and then refuse to elaborate or discuss it at all.

aliasojo

Person_one wrote: »

She's got a point, its a bit 'off' to post something so obviously controversial and then refuse to elaborate or discuss it at all.

Tough.

As I've already said, I only posted as a reply to ailuro to describe how my daughter was the same, yet I had a different opinion about the situation than ailuro did.

I really have no idea why some of you feel this is your situation to become involved in?

I've made it clear I wont be discussing the finer points so normal polite etiquette would facilitate acceptance of this?

Continuing to push really just points to an argumentative motive more than anything else.

Person_one

aliasojo wrote: »

Tough.

As I've already said, I only posted as a reply to ailuro to describe how my daughter was the same, yet I had a different opinion about the situation than ailuro did.

I really have no idea why some of you feel this is your situation to become involved in?

Well, see, you posted it on a public forum!

Of course we're not involved, but you invited us to comment!

Anyway, I'm not getting into an argument, but please consider what I've said, please encourage her to think again, she's made a bad decision.

mountainofdebt

Surely the point is is that both girls decided that they didn't want the vaccaine AFTER reserching it and articulating the reasons why - whether the mums agreed with the decision is neither here nor there ......they at least had a reason.

Victory's son has just refused to have the test and also refused to at least explain why he's made this decision......and for me it would be the refusal to at least explain why that would annoy me.

Lieja

I was instinctively in the 'he's only 13 so why does he get to say no?' camp, until I remembered being 13 and point blank refusing the TB vaccination. I'd had it as a baby, and I was scared so I used that as justification to my parents. They just accepted my decision and I didn't have it.

As for the HPV vac, I'm really interested in what the reasons for not having it would be? I've recently had my first letter to go for a smear, and I'm ignoring it out of fear of going, despite knowing that I definitely should do it. I'm an adult so obviously my decision, but in my mind I know I need a bit of a kick up the bum to make me go!

aliasojo

Person_one wrote: »

Well, see, you posted it on a public forum!

Of course we're not involved, but you invited us to comment!

Did I? No I actually don't believe I did.

However, even if that was the case (and tbh I do not agree that one simple comment to another poster = others being given the right to pry into personal business and then get annoyed when they get rebuffed)....but even if that was the case, I made it clear it's not up for discussion. So instead or respecting that and moving on, a big issue is made of it.

Ah well, entertainment for the afternoon eh? :rotfl:

securityguy

"He is a child. He is incapable of making these decisions himself."

A 13 year old is almost certain Gillick/Axon competent, or at least would be presumed to be so unless there was compelling evidence otherwise. The OP has been mysterious as to whether he's actually ill (in which case there's some urgency) or if this is a concern about some genetic or otherwise incipient condition (in which case there's less urgency and more complex ethical issues, including his right to _not_ know).

Unless the OP wants to refight the Gillick case (and each time it's been tried, notably in the Axon case, Gillick has been upheld and sometimes reinforced) she needs to accept that he's competent to refuse treatment under the Fraser guidelines, and work with him. Talk about "he has no choice" and "just make him" is grandstanding: a doctor who delivered treatment knowing that there were threats being made against the patient to enforce compliance would do so at risk of their registration. Consent must be informed and freely given. "When I was a child" stories aren't relevant: Gillick hadn't made her kamikaze rush against the courts back then.

sukysue

God Victory I bet you didn't realise ppl would start a fight over your innocuous thread did you ? lol

daisiegg

aliasojo wrote: »

Did I? No I actually don't believe I did.

However, even if that was the case (and tbh I do not agree that one simple comment to another poster = others being given the right to pry into personal business and then get annoyed when they get rebuffed)....but even if that was the case, I made it clear it's not up for discussion. So instead or respecting that and moving on, a big issue is made of it.

Ah well, entertainment for the afternoon eh? :rotfl:

I am also interested - is it possible to tell us some general reasons that you think are good reasons not to have the vaccine, but without divulging private and personal info? Just for those who are interested in the issue, but not interested in prying into your daughter's decision!