choosing not to vaccinate

nesf

schween wrote: »

Last year I was so grateful that my parents got me the vaccines as a child when a few of my friends got the mumps. Sore dose!

There are definitely more pros than cons. In developing countries, where many of these diseases are far more prevalent, I'm sure the no side to this debate would be almost non existent.

Vaccines are most compelling in areas where the diseases they protect against are common, then parents can clearly see the cost of not vaccinating. In a country like Ireland, where mumps etc are rare then it's easy for people to forget that what they're vaccinating against is a very nasty disease.


For example, there's a vaccine against dental cavities being worked on at the moment, it's presently in either first or second stage human trials, I forget which exactly. If offered, most of our generation would leap at the chance to take it and give it to our kids since most of us have had unpleasant trips to the dentist for fillings or root canals. In a generation or two's time when no parents would have experienced this themselves, they might undervalue the vaccine because they don't grasp how nasty the alternative is.

shell42970

nesf wrote: »

there's a vaccine against dental cavities being worked on at the moment.

Judas Priest, where will the public draw the line?

I'd love to see the research demonstrating that dental caries (a largely avoidable condition with proper diet and oral hygiene) is a communicable disease that can cause widespread illness, disability, or death - or that the possible side effects of a cavity might be more risky than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

LegacyUser

don't forget, you have to think about others, not just your children. What about the pregnant women your children might pass mumps or rubella onto therefore retarding her child's development. What about the other kids in the playground? Why would you want your children to get painful diseases if science has found a way to prevent them?
I tell ya, in Africa no parent would be refusing vaccines for anything.

Hagar

A cousin of mine decided against getting her kids vaccinated against polio in the sixties, it was taken on a sugar lump, not even an injection. The result of that decision was that her daughter was one of the last cases of polio in Ireland.

Mother's feelings and instincts aren't always right.

siobhank

remember, when your kids grow up and go travelling they will have to get vaccines anyway like polio, tetanus, diphteria, Hep A/B strains. Why not just do the vaccinations when they're kids? MMR is vital to protect pregnant women from birth defects as far as I know.
Sounds a bit over-protective to me although I'm not a parent so I might not understand

shell42970

Hagar wrote: »

Mother's feelings and instincts aren't always right.

This is absolutely true, but to be fair the science of medicine isn't infallible, either.

Hagar

Tell that to my almost very beautiful 2nd cousin.

tallaght01

Australian figures this year are showing we already have more cases of whooping cough so far in the last 7 months than we had in the whole of last year. We've a big increase in the numbers of cases in little babies.

Whooping cough is a well documented killer of babies, and often puts them in hospital for prolonged periods. Speaking on a personal level, rather than on a professional one, I find the adults who are willing to sacrifice these babies on the basis of what they read on the web, to be extremely extremely selfish people.

I'm not supposed to say that. But looking at the figures really made me mad.

eightyfish

In reference to the above, the MMR bull that was promoted by the scaremongering media is to blame for :

Increase in Measles



Increase in Mumps 1 2



These are really nasty, possibly fatal diseases. Before this disinformation about the MMR vaccination spread, these diseases had almost been eradicated. Let's hope rubella stays away, this trend for non-vaccination cannot be let continue.

tallaght01

I've no idea about how to put graphs into my posts, so well done!!!!

Those figures are looking to get even worse this year, with our mid-year figures.

It's awful. We're not even trying to convince the non-vaccinators at this stage, as they're too entrenched in their ways. They're benefiting from the goodwill of others who vaccinate. But we're trying to target the 10%, or thereabouts, of parents who have some reservations about vaccination because of the stuff they read in whatever crazy newspaper or blog publishes stuff about autism and brain damage etc.

Nevyn

Given that it's over 10 years from the mmr scare related to autism it is not strange to see those figures imho.

I didn't have either of mine vaccinated with the mmr, due to the information I had at the time both as much research as I could get my hands on and due to there being autism in the family.

Two years ago my was diagnosed with aspergers syndrome and his sister has be refereed to rule it out, and honestly I feel I made the right call at the time and I am glad I don't have any question of doubts what so ever re if the vaccination could have been a contributing factor.

They have not had measles or mumps but they both be getting vaccinated as soon as possible with the family Dr and getting the meningitis shot as well.

nesf

shell42970 wrote: »

Judas Priest, where will the public draw the line?

I'd love to see the research demonstrating that dental caries (a largely avoidable condition with proper diet and oral hygiene) is a communicable disease that can cause widespread illness, disability, or death - or that the possible side effects of a cavity might be more risky than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

Just because its a vaccine doesn't mean it's for an illness or condition that is communicable! Similar to the "cervical cancer vaccine" such a vaccine only protects the user and doesn't at all contribute to herd immunity.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I've no idea about how to put graphs into my posts, so well done!!!!

Create a graph in whatever software you like to use and copy the image and paste it into Microsoft Paint. Resize the canvas so it exactly fits the graph. Save the file, upload it to somewhere like PhotoBucket and then put the image into your post on here using the IMG tags.

eightyfish

nesf wrote: »

Create a graph in whatever software you like to use and copy the image and paste it into Microsoft Paint. Resize the canvas so it exactly fits the graph. Save the file, upload it to somewhere like PhotoBucket and then put the image into your post on here using the IMG tags.

Also - if you can find the image on a website - right click and select "copy image URL" (in Chrome - FF and IE might say something a bit different). Click on Insert Image in your post and paste in the URL.

Das Kitty

shell42970 wrote: »

This is absolutely true, but to be fair the science of medicine isn't infallible, either.

Not infallible no, but a damn site sounder than parental intuition!

littlebug

tallaght01 wrote: »

But we're trying to target the 10%, or thereabouts, of parents who have some reservations about vaccination because of the stuff they read in whatever crazy newspaper or blog publishes stuff about autism and brain damage etc.

There was some research here a couple of years back... I can't remember the exact details or figures but there was a fairly sizeable proportion of parents who fitted into that "unsure" category and there was also a whole other group who had delayed getting their child immunized simply because they hadn't got round to it yet...e.g both parents working and GP 9-5 times don't suit and other such reasons so it was just put on the long finger. Direct contact and discussion with parents with some flexible clinic times would increase the immunisation uptake figures among both those groups I think.

My eldest was over 2 before she got her MMR because she was sick an awful lot thus not well enough to get it and I ended up taking so much time off work when she was sick that it was hard to take any more time off when she was well

eta- apologies... i'm useless at providing research details. I think the research referred to above was an in-house rather than journal published piece or work but if anyone is interested I can find out further details or how to access the report.

tallaght01

It's that population of parents who aren't 100% against vaccines that are often the target of intervention. The anti-vaccine people just often don't trust medics, and there's sometimes nothing you can do about that. But up to 10% of parents regard themselves as "unsure" about vaccines. So they're people who are open to being given the right info.

I was at a meeting today, discussing people who are "too busy" to get their kids vaccinated. People were suggesting that they have to show evidence of vaccination before their kids will be allowed go to school, which might help the situation, as well as protect other kids. I know I'd be pissed if my kid was at school sitting next to the child of a parent who doesn't believe in vaccines. It's a politically brave move, though, which sadly usually trumps public health benefit.

LegacyUser

I would suggest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/mmr_debate/default.stm gives you a broader view than, IMO, the unhelpfully biased AHRP.[/QUOTE]

No offence but I'm not sure that the propaganda machine that is BBC can offer a broader view.

tallaght01

Unregistered wrote: »

I would suggest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/mmr_debate/default.stm gives you a broader view than, IMO, the unhelpfully biased AHRP.

No offence but I'm not sure that the propaganda machine that is BBC can offer a broader view.

Click on the "MMR research timeline tab on that BBC link. It basically just gives a (surprisingly accurate) rundown on the research carried out on this topic. That would be pretty objective.

ceannair06

When you hear people saying (as I have and it chilled me) "I'm not vaccinating my children until I find out whether Tony Blair did".

WTF ??? Parents DO NOT KNOW BEST!

Except my mam, she knew everything!

LegacyUser

The bottom line is are you willing to put your child at risk of contracting a fatal/maiming disease that medical science has found a preventative measure for i.e. a vaccine? Yes or no>>

hallelujajordan

I really cannot believe there are parents who chose to not vaccinate their children. For me (a qualified Microbiologist) it is a simple Risk equation . .

Are you willing to expose your child to the very significant health risks posed by really dangerous diseases such as measles, mumps, TB, polio, rubella in order to protect them against the very remote risks that may be associated with vaccination (although there is little published research demonstrating even remote risk).

I have two daughters and I would never dream of not vaccinating them.

Aside from the individual and personal question, there is an additional question of protecting society which is why the health authorities are so aggressive in pushing their vaccination policies (anyone who believes this is financially driven is so far off the mark in my opinion that they should not be making such critical decisions for their children). We all benefit from herd immunity. If you choose not to vaccinate your child, the risk of them contracting measles is still quite small as most others are vaccinated and therefore will not carry and transmit the disease. However, if we all chose not to vaccinate then the risk to your child (and every other child) increases very significantly. Lots of children will get measles and a significant number of them will die. The development of vaccinations has had a greater impact on infant mortality than any other medical development over the past 100 years. In my view, denying your children recommended vaccinations is both negligent and irresponsible.

eightyfish

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In my view, denying your children recommended vaccinations is both negligent and irresponsible.

Hear hear.

shell42970 wrote: »

Our GP respects our stance on the vaccinations, and understands that it was an educated decision, not an emotional one, however he doesn't approve of it.

Just read this post from early in the thread. I have to say that in my opinion there is no way choosing not to vaccinate your child can be considered an educated decision. The science is quite straightforward and shows, without any doubt, that vaccines are safe. The statistics show that M, M & R have suddenly re-emerged and are threatening children's lives (see graphs earlier).

embee

My daughter has had every vaccination for a child of her age (she is 3.5). She is not a child who gets sick at all, never has colds, ear or throat infections, has been exposed to children with chickenpox but hasn't contracted them herself, so part of me imagines that she's got a pretty good immune system. Last time she was in anyway ill it turned out to be nothing more than a runny nose. She's had two antibiotics prescribed to her in three years. The problem with that is that I don't actually know how to deal with a sick child!

That said, I'm not a doctor and I just don't want to take a risk with her health that could have far reaching complications for her in the future. She will receive all vaccines available to her at the different stages throughout primary school. I think any perceived risks with vaccinations are miniscule at best and the pros far outweigh the cons.

My brother, who is 30, had the mumps as a toddler. His hearing since then has been poor. Mumps can cause hearing problems, infertility.... imagine bringing that down on your child for the sake of not getting a vaccine?

Not something that I would personally be comfortable with.

W.B. Yeats

shell42970 wrote: »

Judas Priest, where will the public draw the line?

I'd love to see the research demonstrating that dental caries (a largely avoidable condition with proper diet and oral hygiene) is a communicable disease that can cause widespread illness, disability, or death - or that the possible side effects of a cavity might be more risky than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

Dental caries is a communicable disease in so far as you need to have the caries causing bacteria in your mouth to get caries. Most of the bacteria are passed from mother to child in the first years of life. The results of dental caries can be death due to infection as rotten teeth can eventually abcess in or around the maxillary sinuses transmitting the infection throughout the body. While rare the implications of poor dental health are not only aesthetic, countless children and adults are treated under general anaesthetic every year, some die as a result of the anaesthetic.
Anything that stops or decreases this is to be applauded

Fluoridating the water in ireland is an example of probably the most cost effective public health measure anywhere in the world. The govt of the time and the judiciary decided that the health of the population superseeded the rights of the individual.

I'd be in favour of making it mandatory for children to be vaccinated,

Das Kitty

Unregistered wrote: »

Could I ask for some advice re: Cancer vaccine

I have 3 teenage daughters and we have discussed them having the vaccine. They are looking to me for advice as to whether they should receive it or not.

Most of the reading I have done has been on the internet which to be honest is not great and has left me more confused.

I went to our GP who didn't tell me a whole lot except the vaccine they offer and the cost. As I have 3 daughters to be vaccinated i asked could I negotiate the price. He sent me a letter saying provided all 3 daughters were vaccinated at the same time I could have it for €1045 instead of €1185. The vaccine is Gardasil.

I followed up on the thread on Boards about Charter Medical offering the vaccine for €300 each. The vaccine is Cervarix.

While Charter Medical is cheaper, it is in Dublin & I am not. I would have approx an 2 hour commute.

My question is not really about the cost but about:

Is the vaccine safe for my daughters e.g has it been in circulation long enough to establish side effects etc?

If the answer is yes to this question, which of the two vaccines should I/they choose I know both vaccines offer similar but not the same protection but even still I don't know which one to advise them to receive/not receive or should they adopt a wait and see approach.

One other question I have is I know they need 3 doses each but will they need a booster in time to come again my 'reading' led me to a booster being required 5 years post vaccination, but I also read elsewhere that this is untrue.

I would be greatful for advice in relation to my questions, I don't need to be convinced on the benefits of vaccinations as I am fully aware of the benefits as to date they have received all vaccines.

To this point all of my children (I have more than these 3 teenagers) have received all vaccinations since birth but whether its cos I am getting older or because this is a new vaccine I am very unsure about what advice to give them.

These are really questions for a doctor. Can you ask your doctor again? If you get the same kind of response, try another doctor.