Background Vaccine hesitancy has affected COVID-19 adult vaccination programs in many countries. Data on hesitancy amongst child and adolescent populations is largely confined to parent opinion. We investigated the characteristics of vaccine hesitant children and adolescents using results from a large, school-based self-report survey of the willingness to have a COVID-19 vaccination in students aged 9 –18 years in England. Methods Data from the OxWell Student Survey on mental health, life experiences and behaviours were used, collected from four counties across England. Local authority partners recruited schools. The vaccine hesitancy question gave six response options and were clustered to inform delivery: eager and willing were categorised as vaccination ‘opt-in’, don't know and not bothered categorised as ‘undecided’, and unwilling and anti-vaccination categorised as ‘opt-out’. We conducted a multinomial regression to determine associations between vaccine hesitancy and sociodemographic, health behaviour and social connection variables. Findings 27,910 students from 180 schools answered the vaccine hesitancy question between 14th May and 21st July 2021, of whom 13984 (50.1%) would opt-in to take a vaccination, 10322 (37.0%) were undecided, and 3604 (12.9%) would opt-out. A lower percentage of younger students reported that they would opt-in to vaccination, for example, 35.7% of 9-year-olds and 51.3% of 13-year-olds compared to 77.8% of 17-year-olds would opt-in to take a vaccination. Students who were ‘opt-out’ or ‘undecided’ (a combined ‘vaccine hesitant’ group) were more likely to come from deprived socioeconomic contexts with higher rates of home rental versus home ownership and their school locations were more likely to be in areas of greater deprivation. They were more likely to smoke or vape, spend longer on social media, feel that they did not belong in their school community but had lower levels of anxiety and depression. The vaccine hesitant students- the undecided and opt-out groups- were similar in profile, although the opt-out students had higher reported confirmed or probable previous COVID-19 infection than the opt-in group, whereas those undecided, did not. Interpretation If government vaccination strategies move towards vaccinating younger school-aged students, efforts to increase vaccination uptake may be necessary. Compared with students who would opt-in, those who were vaccine hesitant had greater indicators of social deprivation and felt a lack of community cohesion by not feeling a sense of belonging at their school. There were indications that those students who would opt-out had higher levels of marginalisation and mistrust. If programmes are rolled out, focus on hesitant younger students will be important, targeting more marginalised and deprived young people with information from trusted sources utilising social media; improving access to vaccination centres with provision both in a...

No abstract

The UK Supreme Court Montgomery judgment marks a decisive shift in the legal test of duty of care in the context of consent to treatment, from the perspective of the clinician (as represented by Bolam rules) to that of the patient. A majority of commentators on Montgomery have focused on the implications of the judgment for disclosure of risk. In this article, we set risk disclosure in context with three further elements of the judgment: benefits, options, and dialogue. These elements, we argue, taken together with risk disclosure, reflect the origins of the Montgomery ruling in a model of consent based on autonomy of patient choice through shared decision-making with their doctor. This model reflects recent developments in both law and medicine and is widely regarded (by the General Medical Council and others) as representing best practice in contemporary person-centred medicine. So understood, we suggest, the shift marked by Montgomery in the basis of duty of care is a shift in underpinning values: it is a shift from the clinician's interpretation about what would be best for patients to the values of (to what is significant or matters from the perspective of) the particular patient concerned in the decision in question. But the values of the particular patient do not thereby become paramount. The Montgomery test of duty of care requires the values of the particular patient to be balanced alongside the values of a reasonable person in the patient's position. We illustrate some of the practical challenges arising from the balance of considerations required by Montgomery with examples from surgical care. These examples show the extent to which Montgomery, in mirroring the realities of clinical decision-making, provides elbowroom for best practice in person-centred clinical care.

ABSTRACT. This article seeks to explain and explore the concept of bodily integrity. The concept is often elided with autonomy in the case law and the academic literature. It argues that bodily integrity is non-reducible to the principle of autonomy. Bodily integrity relates to the integration of the self and the rest of the objective world. A breach of it, therefore, is significantly different to inteference in decisions about your body. This explains why interference with bodily integrity requires justification beyond what will suffice for an interference with autonomy. It also explores how this understanding of bodily integrity assists in understanding disability, gender and separated bodily material.

This article challenges the assumptions that underpin many discussions about health. In particular the view that healthy people are autonomous, self-sufficient and contained. It will argue that in our nature humans are, and should be, vulnerable, interdependent and caring. Health must be understood in a way which recognises that. We should not hide from the precarious, leaky, relational aspect of our bodies, but rejoice in them.