Consent not required to vax minors - can this be right?

[minkajane]

I'm in school to be a medical administrative assistant. We're doing the chapter on law (confidentiality, liability, etc) and it's listing circumstances where consent is not required to treat minors.

Consent is not required for minors in the following circumstances:
- When consent may be assumed, such as in a life-threatening situation
- When a certain treatment is required by law, such as a vaccination or x-ray evaluation for school entry or safety
- When a court order has been issued, as in a situation in which parents withhold consent for a necessary treatment because of religious reasons

Bolding mine. When this came up in class, I immediately asked how this was possible, since vaxes aren't required for school. My teacher nodded and agreed with me and let me talk about the different kinds of exemptions and everything. But she never explained why the book says this. Can a school really vax kids without consent if they decide they require it or there's an outbreak or something? How can that be legal or even SAFE? Most school nurses don't have a kid's entire medical history - they could have an allergy to one of the ingredients, or a previous bad reaction, or any number of things. Plus if there's no parental consent, there's no guarantee of parental notification. So the parents will have no clue what to look for or what's going on if their kid has a reaction.

The most recent copyright on this book is 2007, so it's not old. This has GOT to be wrong.

[Gitti]

I hope it is wrong also but with all the covert things that were passed under the guise of "homeland security" I just don't know any more.

We used to have freedoms as such in the US. But that is a thing of the past. People were asleep while tptb ruled over them.

[Marnica]

No way that is accurate...

Suppose a child has a severe egg allergy, but it is not seen in the record or it's not there....this would open up the way for ALLLLL kinds of lawsuits. I can't see how this can be correct. No medicine/and or medical procedure procedure can be given without consent to a minor...

[Emmeline II]

It may just be a poor example.

Remember what happened in Maryland? Parents who did not give utd vax records by the deadline were summoned to court. If they did not come to court, the state would have taken the children to be vaccinated and the parents would have gone to jail; however, if the parents had submitted religious exemptions for the children, or they had legally pulled them to homeschool, that would not have happened to those parents/children.

My MA text does not even mention non-consent (yet, it's only chapter 3), but covers what a minor may consent to.

[Emmeline II]

Originally Posted by Marnica

No way that is accurate...

No medicine/and or medical procedure procedure can be given without consent to a minor...

Not when it comes to reproductive issues. Minors can consent to STD vaccines, birth control, and abortions.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

Not when it comes to reproductive issues. Minors can consent to STD vaccines, birth control, and abortions.

don't they have to be at least 16??

[MrsMcCullen07]

I graduated in 2006 but I know in school they couldn't even give you a tylenol your parent had to come and give it you (even when I was 17) ... they had to have dr. forms and consent forms to give children medicine they needed during the day (I had a diabetic in my class) ... I wouldn't think they could vaccinate your child @ school but then again they do whatever they want to it seems .. I will ask my MIL tho she is Superintendent of our local school system .. she may not tell me though since she is very oppsoed to my hopes to homeschool

[ZoeyZoo]

Originally Posted by Marnica

don't they have to be at least 16??

Last I checked in my state it was 12 or 13. This is something that probably varies by state.