In response to part one of “Buy one get one free”, the following was written by a kind reader, Omicron, in response to my piece. I so valued their contribution and time taken to research and share their perspective on Gillick Competence, via comments to part one, that I wanted to honour that effort by publishing it here as part two. What follows has only been altered for formatting. Thank you, Omicron. Your connection is the reason I write.
We cannot expect adults or young adults, who have been under tremendous stressors for the past 23 months, to make clear, rational, unemotional decisions regarding experimental jabs so how could we expect Gillick competent children?
Your article made me realize I know little about the Gillick Competency Assessment/Test.
In modern day Covid psychosis and per Big Brother:
“Gillick competence… is used by judges and health professionals, to identify children aged under 16 who have the legal competence to consent to immunization providing they can demonstrate sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand and appraise the nature and implications of the proposed treatment, including the risks and alternative courses of actions.”.
Human Vaccines and Immunotherapies: What is Gillick competence?
Over in the US, I found that NIH explanation.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information is part of the United States National Library of Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health. It is approved and funded by the government of the United States. Below are the Gillick Competence parameters in the US.
Assessing Gillick Competence:
The rule in Gillick must be applied when determining whether a child under 16 has competence to consent. The aim of Gillick competence is to reflect the transition of a child to adulthood. Legal competence to make decisions is conditional on the child gradually acquiring both:
Maturity
That takes account of the child's experiences and the child's ability to manage influences on their decision making such as information, peer pressure, family pressure, fear, and misgivings.
Intelligence
That takes account of the child's understanding, ability to weigh risk and benefit, consideration of longer-term factors such as effect on family life and on such things as schooling.
…
Gillick competence is a functional ability to make a decision. It is task specific so more complex procedures require greater levels of competence. When assessing Gillick competence for immunization, a health professional has to decide whether the child is or is not competent to make that particular decision. It is not just an ability to choose where the child recognizes that there is a choice to be made and is willing to make it. Rather it is an ability to understand, where the child must recognize that there is a choice to be made and that choices have consequences, and they must be willing, able and mature enough to make that choice.
Health professionals must be satisfied that the child understands:
The necessity for immunization and the reasons for it; and
The risks, intended benefits and outcomes of the proposed immunization and alternatives to immunization, including the option of not having or delaying the immunization.
Personally, I do not understand how the Gillick competency test can be used when discussing experimental gene therapy.
First, I would like to hear the explanation the health professional gives showing the necessity and reason a child that age needs experimental gene therapy.
Second, they are all still in trial phase and no long-term outcomes can be known. The short-term outcomes are limited and campaigned with gross bias completely ignoring major adverse reactions such as death. How more complex can a treatment be when it is still in trial phase and outcomes are either unknown or suppressed? The child’s ability to understand the risk is solely in the control of the health professional communicating the information if no parent, guardian, or child advocate is present. The child is also limited to the alternatives available which is at the sole discretion of the healthcare professional. Such as, “Have you had Covid-19?”, “If you have already had covid, your chances of feeling poorly from covid again are extremely rare.”.
Over here in the UK, I got more familiar with the Greenbook.
Principles of consent for immunisation
Information should include details of the process, the benefits of immunisation, and the risks, including rare and common side effects and what to do if they occur. Where feasible, healthcare professionals seeking consent should find out what matters to individuals so that they can share relevant information about the benefits and risks of immunisation, including the risks of not proceeding with immunisation." (Chapter 2 page 2)
Public Health England Greenbook - Chapter 2, Consent
The healthcare professional’s accountability is crap! They “should?”. I think they “must.”. If full transparency is not available, how can consent be given? Complete transparency includes the side effects and the rare and some time fatal side effects.
Consent in children and young people
If a person aged 16 or 17 years or a Gillick-competent child refuses treatment that refusal should be accepted." (Chapter 2 page 3)
Public Health England Greenbook - Chapter 2, Consent in children and young people
So, if the Gillick competent child refuses treatment, there is no guarantee their decision will be accepted. I seriously doubt if the same child accepted the experimental gene therapy treatment their decision would ever be challenged.
A little insight from NSPCC Learning – Gillick Competence:
Assessing Gillick Competence
There is NO set of defined questions to assess Gillick competency. Professionals need to consider several things when assessing a child's capacity to consent, including:
the child's age, maturity, and mental capacity
their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages, and potential long-term impact
their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
their understanding of any alternative options, if available
their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.
Remember that consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.
Children's capacity to consent may be affected by different factors, for example stress, mental health conditions and the complexities of the decision they are making. The same child may be considered Gillick competent to make one decision but not competent to make a different decision.
NSPCC: Gillick competency and Fraser guidelines, June 10 2020
Agree, the Gillick Competence is being used as a State weapon here and across the globe.
All must be done to protect the innocent and even the “not so smart” who think they are smart.
What young person has not been pressured or influenced? The propaganda surrounds them and the continuous mind-fuckery is exhausting.
“Kids, you get to go __________.”.
“Oh, my apologies, the crocodile at the zoo tested positive for covid today.”.
“We must cancel all activities and lock you kids back down for your own safety.”.
<<< mind-fuckery >>>
These days, I don’t know many adults I feel are competent enough to make proper decisions when it comes to Covid experimental gene therapies. I know of no Gillick competent children.
Passing along a preview for you and your readers, the next battle looming over the horizon. Familiarize yourself with some fantastic work by Toby Rogers:
What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in kids 5-11 based on the Pfizer EUA application?
“So, the Number Needed to Vaccinate in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, according to Pfizer’s own data, is infinity. ∞. Not the good kind of infinity as in God or love or time or the universe. This is the bad kind of infinity as in you could vaccinate every child age 5 to 11 in the U.S. and not prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death from coronavirus according to Pfizer’s own clinical trial data as submitted to the FDA. Of course, Pfizer likes this kind of infinity because it means infinite profits.”.