Vaccine Passports

bear66 said:
Zahawi is right. This is what the NHS site says:

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.
Click to expand...
That's not all it says bear.
 
If a parent refuses to give consent to a particular treatment, this decision can be overruled by the courts if treatment is thought to be in the best interests of the child.
 
Laughing said:
If a parent refuses to give consent to a particular treatment, this decision can be overruled by the courts if treatment is thought to be in the best interests of the child.
Click to expand...
That's if a child isn't deemed to be Gillick competent and consent is left with the parent.

The whole section:
People aged 16 or over are entitled to consent to their own treatment. This can only be overruled in exceptional circumstances.

Like adults, young people (aged 16 or 17) are presumed to have sufficient capacity to decide on their own medical treatment, unless there's significant evidence to suggest otherwise.

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.

Otherwise, someone with parental responsibility can consent for them.
 
Randy said:
Except if you smoke and drink you can still get treatment on the NHS.

There are some on this forum who are wanting access to the NHS to be denied for people who don't want the vaccine. Crazy.
Click to expand...
Us smokers pay 12 billion in tax a year, which funds us clogging up the NHS and pays for nurses hospitals and the like. We are also segregated from non smokers in indoor places to stop our second hand smoke from affecting other people.

They're talking about a tax on junk foods. We've got a tax on alcohol too - though I don't imagine that funds fixing the chaos alcohol causes.

You've posted elsewhere about a man who was unable to access NHS services. It's terrible that people are unable to access resources on the NHS. People who have not taken the vaccine are taking up hospital beds. The waiting lists are massive. People will die because of this.

People of course have a right to not take the vaccine. They will be discriminated again because of their actions. Just like smokers are.

While denying people treatment is immoral, there is certainly precedent for people whose behaviour is damaging towards others to have to pay for their treatment through taxes.
 
bear66 said:
That's if a child isn't deemed to be Gillick competent and consent is left with the parent.

The whole section:
People aged 16 or over are entitled to consent to their own treatment. This can only be overruled in exceptional circumstances.

Like adults, young people (aged 16 or 17) are presumed to have sufficient capacity to decide on their own medical treatment, unless there's significant evidence to suggest otherwise.

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.

Otherwise, someone with parental responsibility can consent for them.
Click to expand...
That's not white the way I read it bear but you may be right. It doesn't seem that clear to me but I would still read it as requiring parental consent if the parents disagree with the child
 
Laughing said:
That's not white the way I read it bear but you may be right. It doesn't seem that clear to me but I would still read it as requiring parental consent if the parents disagree with the child
Click to expand...

No, that’s not correct. As a matter of law the parental right to determine whether an under 16 year old should or shouldn’t have treatment ends when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand the treatment.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Us smokers pay 12 billion in tax a year, which funds us clogging up the NHS and pays for nurses hospitals and the like. We are also segregated from non smokers in indoor places to stop our second hand smoke from affecting other people.

They're talking about a tax on junk foods. We've got a tax on alcohol too - though I don't imagine that funds fixing the chaos alcohol causes.

You've posted elsewhere about a man who was unable to access NHS services. It's terrible that people are unable to access resources on the NHS. People who have not taken the vaccine are taking up hospital beds. The waiting lists are massive. People will die because of this.

People of course have a right to not take the vaccine. They will be discriminated again because of their actions. Just like smokers are.

While denying people treatment is immoral, there is certainly precedent for people whose behaviour is damaging towards others to have to pay for their treatment through taxes.
Click to expand...
People who have taken the vaccine have also ended up in hospital which I believe those in charge obviously accounted for too.

My point was you can't deny access to medical treatment to those who don't want to or can't have the vaccine. We still live in a democratic country (well at least we should but it doesn't look like it at the moment granted) not a country ran by dictators.
 
Randy said:
People who have taken the vaccine have also ended up in hospital which I believe those in charge obviously accounted for too.

My point was you can't deny access to medical treatment to those who don't want to or can't have the vaccine. We still live in a democratic country (well at least we should but it doesn't look like it at the moment granted) not a country ran by dictators.
Click to expand...

It’s not dictatorship to say that you can either have the vaccine or not but that if you don’t you won’t be allowed to do certain things. They won’t be denied medical treatment, no matter how selfish or stupid they’ve been. So I don’t really see the point you’re making.
 
Laughing said:
That's not white the way I read it bear but you may be right. It doesn't seem that clear to me but I would still read it as requiring parental consent if the parents disagree with the child
Click to expand...
It doesn't say that at all. The "Otherwise" is the key word. Parents only get involved if children are not deemed to be competent etc.

What Zahawi seemed to be saying was that any differences would be discussed with the parent and child but, assuming competence etc., the child's decision would be final. Interestingly, there is no lower age limit.
 
Randy said:
People who have taken the vaccine have also ended up in hospital which I believe those in charge obviously accounted for too.

My point was you can't deny access to medical treatment to those who don't want to or can't have the vaccine. We still live in a democratic country (well at least we should but it doesn't look like it at the moment granted) not a country ran by dictators.
Click to expand...
Yes you can't deny medical treatment. But you can discriminate against those who wilfully do not take steps to safeguard theirs and others health. People in hospital who have been vaccinated have done that.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It’s not dictatorship to say that you can either have the vaccine or not but that if you don’t you won’t be allowed to do certain things. They won’t be denied medical treatment, no matter how selfish or stupid they’ve been. So I don’t really see the point you’re making.
Click to expand...
Catch up Adi. People on this very thread have said those who won't, don't, can't have the vaccine should be denied access to medical treatment.
 
Randy said:
Catch up Adi. People on this very thread have said those who won't, don't, can't have the vaccine should be denied access to medical treatment.
Click to expand...
I think they have, at worst, said they should pay for it no? Are you over reacting again?
 
bear66 said:
Zahawi when asked the question:

He was asked what would happen if a teenager wants the jab but their parents object.

Zahawi said:

What you essentially do is make sure that the clinicians discuss this with the parents [and] with the teenager and if they are then deemed to be able to make a decision that is competent, then that decision will will go in the favour of what the teenager decides to do.
Click to expand...
That's even better, loving the "competent" part.
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
I think they have, at worst, said they should pay for it no? Are you over reacting again?
Click to expand...
Everybody already pays for it? National insurance 'contributions'. 😉

Bigger fish to fry tonight anyways. Staff party at work, blow off a bit of steam after a ***** 18 months.
 
mymatelookslikephilstamp said:
Looks like common sense may prevail after all and it was hopefully just a (shameful) coercion tactic all along 👏 🤞

www.thetimes.co.uk

Covid vaccine passports scrapped for winter by Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson will announce this week that he is scrapping plans that would have required vaccine passports for entry to nightclubs, cinemas and sports grounds.
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
As I've posted elsewhere I think the real reason for scrapping plans is that the passports would not have any meaningful effect in controlling the spread of Covid for reasons that the government doesn't want to fully expand on. It's nowt to do with freedom, choice, two tier societies, blah, blah, blah....................... But the government will be quite happy if you're distracted to think they are protecting such things. The reasons are far more pragmatic and I suspect science based.
 
Johnson has done what his back benchers have told him to. Introducing passports would have triggered a vote of no confidence and he would have very likely lost.

It has nothing to do with science and it was an attempt by the government to encourage some to get vaccinated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top