Should teens be able to go against the wishes of "vaccine hesitant" parents?

Should teens be able to go against the wishes of "vaccine hesitant" parents?

  • Yes

    Votes: 195 72.5%
  • No

    Votes: 51 19.0%
  • Other / Undecided

    Votes: 23 8.6%

  • Total voters
    269

[XC] Oj101

Dealer
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
4,070
Hmmm. I guess you were also sent to bed at the time your parents decided?

NB NB NB Joke

13-year olds are perfectly capable of deciding against anything their parents or elder siblings want them to do, right? So it comes down to the longer-term consequences of a decision. Here, most early teens don't have the experience or maturity to make the decisions unaided.
At 13, yes. By the time I was 16 I knew when I was tired and how much sleep I needed. By the time I was 18, that had taken another 180. I don't think I had (or was capable of having) the maturity to make such decisions until I was done with my teens. Looking at my friends at the time, and children of my friends now, I think it's safe to say this applies to most teens, if not all. Teens make stupid decisions and mistakes all the time. It's what parents are for.

Oh, and let me just add - as a teen, I was NEVER wrong /rolls eyes
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,854
"Should teens be able to go against the wishes of "vaccine hesitant" parents?"

The question's too broad. I think most 13-year olds are too young to make informed, rational decisions on this, and for the same reason we don't allow profit-driven cigarette companies to manipulate 13-year olds for profit, we shouldn't allow profit-driven pharmaceutical companies to manipulate 13-year olds for profit.

But I think from around 16 it may be fair to argue for an adolescent to make their own decisions on something like covid vaccines.

Cigarette companies used to be happy to market products to teens that literally killed people, what makes big-profit pharmaceutical companies automatically saints? They would of course try manipulate teens with fear to sell more product. Kids have very low risk from covid infection. The vaccines cause increased risk of problems like pericarditis in teens ... would adolescents understand this all well enough to make a balanced decision?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
13,282
We're in a time where 2/3yo are considered intelligent enough and capable of making life altering decisions re their genders etc and whether to get stuffed full of chemicals to block puberty and whatnot... so yes, they should be allowed to drink, vote, sign contracts, and inject themselves with whatever they feel like
 

C4Cat

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
12,981
"Should teens be able to go against the wishes of "vaccine hesitant" parents?"

The question's too broad. I think most 13-year olds are too young to make informed, rational decisions on this, and for the same reason we don't allow profit-driven cigarette companies to manipulate 13-year olds for profit, we shouldn't allow profit-driven pharmaceutical companies to manipulate 13-year olds for profit.

But I think from around 16 it may be fair to argue for an adolescent to make their own decisions on something like covid vaccines.

Cigarette companies used to be happy to market products to teens that literally killed people, what makes big-profit pharmaceutical companies automatically saints? They would of course try manipulate teens with fear to sell more product. Kids have very low risk from covid infection. The vaccines cause increased risk of problems like pericarditis in teens ... would adolescents understand this all well enough to make a balanced decision?
You're comparing getting a vaccination to smoking cigarettes... smh and wtf, no wonder the waters are so muddy when it comes to vaccines.

However I do agree that some 13-year olds are too young to be given the decision which is why I think it should be made mandatory.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
30,229
On the balance of things, my answer is no. The vast majority of parents are not anti-vaxx in any real sense. Just because someone has legitimate concerns about the risks vs reward of vaccines doesn't make them anti-vaccine. With the coof vaccine, it is a completely moot point given that teenagers face comparatively little risk.

Are hospital ICUs being swamped with healthy teenagers (not the "healthy" teenagers that weigh 140kg that vaccine cultists treat as martyrs)?
 

Gyre

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
3,414
You're comparing getting a vaccination to smoking cigarettes... smh and wtf, no wonder the waters are so muddy when it comes to vaccines.

However I do agree that some 13-year olds are too young to be given the decision which is why I think it should be made mandatory.

Some parents act like kids themselves, and they have choices. Nobody has to writ a test or get a license to have a kid, which is the dangerous thing.
 

Sepeng

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
2,079
So I might be all for vaccines but say this rule was introduced for something I'm against, would I still be fine with it?
The flip side to that is, what if I'm against my child receiving any sort of medical assistance, surely then they should be allowed to overrule my wishes?
All in all I'd say no, with exceptions allowed. We give parents this right to raise their children as they see fit and as long as the child's life is not in danger I don't think a government should be allowed to take that right away.
But then what about the right of the child I hear you ask? Fack I don't know. That's where the exceptions come in I guess.
Anyway, short story long, no. But like a soft no that could be convinced to switch to yes.
 

Ryansr

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,184
Yes they should be allowed to go against the wishes of their parents if they take ownership of their decision to do so.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
22,668
And the long answer?
Given that their parents are antivaxxers chances are they also won't be operating with a full pack cards when compared to the peers in their age group. You certainly don't want them making any decisions.
 

BasBas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
224
Given that their parents are antivaxxers chances are they also won't be operating with a full pack cards when compared to the peers in their age group. You certainly don't want them making any decisions.
I am not sure i follow...
 

BasBas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
224
Should parents be allowed to reject medical treatment for their children? keeping in mind this is based in a country with NHS where payment is not really a problem.

I think this decision makes perfect sense in a country where parents already have no say in many decisions of children 13 and above, including Termination of pregnancy, contraception and nearly any treatment. While many may disagree with the ruling, it does align with the views of the country and its healthcare system.
 

BasBas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
224
On the balance of things, my answer is no. The vast majority of parents are not anti-vaxx in any real sense. Just because someone has legitimate concerns about the risks vs reward of vaccines doesn't make them anti-vaccine. With the coof vaccine, it is a completely moot point given that teenagers face comparatively little risk.

Are hospital ICUs being swamped with healthy teenagers (not the "healthy" teenagers that weigh 140kg that vaccine cultists treat as martyrs)?
I can tell you the story of a healthy teenager who is now stuck at home bedridden after complex conditions emerged from contracting covid in February unable to attend her first year of university.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
30,229
I can tell you the story of a healthy teenager who is now stuck at home bedridden after complex conditions emerged from contracting covid in February.
Of course you can. I can also dig up plenty of stories about people dying from the vaccine as well.

Neither of which disputes the fact that the risk from the virus is still minimal to teenagers.
 

BasBas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
224
Of course you can. I can also dig up plenty of stories about people dying from the vaccine as well.

Neither of which disputes the fact that the risk from the virus is still minimal to teenagers.
Is it greater than the risk of the vaccine? I am struggling to find any credible evidence showing vaccines being the causation of death. (Any death)
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,854
You're comparing getting a vaccination to smoking cigarettes... smh and wtf, no wonder the waters are so muddy when it comes to vaccines.

Consider this. The vaccines increase the risk of pericarditis/myocarditis among children (and adults, for that matter), for reasons that aren't yet well scientifically understood, because of the lack of long-term studies. The FDA even acknowledge this:


My question is, do you think that the profit-driven executives of pharmaceutical companies can be trusted to properly inform teenagers of the risks, or do you think they may have profit-driven motivations to be biased in trying to conceal these risks, in order to sell more vaccines to frightened adolescents?

Or question 2, what makes executives of tobacco companies 'evil', but somehow, magically, the profit-driven pharmaceutical companies' executives are automatically saints and would never do that? Is there some special quality that makes you automatically noble when you run a pharmaceutical company?

Reminder, Pfizer set aside $894 million in 2008 to settle lawsuits relating to painkiller Bextra that turned out to have safety issues (and caused deaths), and Merck paid nearly $5 billion in 2007 to settle claims relating to Vioxx that turned out to cause heart attacks and strokes, killing an estimated 60,000 people (and causing approximately 140,000 heart attacks). They knowingly concealed risks and downplayed it even after studies started showing problems - such good people! But don't worry, I'm sure that in 2020 they've all become complete saints.

Johnson & Johnson settled around $775m as recently as 2019 for problems relating to Xarelto, which also led to problems like internal bleeding and death, risks which they downplayed specifically for profit motive:


Pfizer settled a total of $2.3bn in 2009 (after whistleblowers blew the lid on some of their fraudulent practices) not only for Bextra, but for illegally promoting other drugs for off-label use, and other fraudulent practices.

But sure, keep blindly trusting these wonderful saints, who would never put profit before lives, trust that they only have the best interests of your children at heart. Don't think.

References:
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-bextra-idUSTRE49G43220081017
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-vioxx-settlement-idUSL0929726620071109
* https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/19/merck-vioxx-graham_cx_mh_0819graham.html#:~:text=Graham has estimated that Vioxx,FDA led to those deaths.
 
Last edited:
Top