Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[Lovedtodeath]

There are plenty of reasons to eliminate this disease that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to face the natural consequences of immoral sexual behavior.

I don't think that was the point. The point was the risk factor.

[KidsHappen]

Look at Perry's graph again:

 

Can you look at that graph and say that measles vaccines haven't saved lives, not to mention 400,000+ very painful illnesses per year?

 

Around 1990, the mortality rate from measles in the United States was 2.83 deaths/1000 reported cases. The measles vaccine is saving roughly 1,100 lives in the United States every year.

 

Once again, the chart shows incidence not death rate. Most deaths due to childhood disease occur in people who have chosen not to vaccinate and therefore assume the risk and the vaccinated which theoretically are proctected. There are very few innocent bystanders who have been harmed by the "freeriders". I am sorry but it is simply not possible or practical to eliminate all risk. It comes down to a parent chosing which risk they are willing to take. I was willing to risk the childhood diseases which worked out just fine for my family.

[KingM]

So what possible reason could I have for exposing my children to the risks of vaccines and what possible benefits could it have for society?

 

The measles vaccine is saving at least 1,100 lives in the United States every year. 2.83 deaths per 1,000 cases, as of 1990, and 400,000 cases of measles per year (with a much lower population, it should be noted) in the year before the measles vaccine was introduced and virtually eliminated the disease.

 

1,100 lives is a benefit, isn't it?

[Lovedtodeath]

I am beginning to think that a lot of people have me on ignore. :001_huh:

[KingM]

Once again, the chart shows incidence not death rate.

 

Once again, the death rate in 1990 was 2.83 per 1,000 cases. So we are saving roughly 1,100 lives per year.

[mommaduck]

The "informed decision" question is different than the "free rider" question. Someone could make an informed decision not to vaccinate and this would not answer whether or not he/she was gaining benefit from the risks assumed by other individuals.

 

Not to mention modern hospitals, disease theory, understanding of evolution in viral and bacterial population, milk pasteurization, etc. Thank goodness we live in the modern world. But those are all separate advances than the development of effective vaccines.

 

Again, here is Perry's chart. It is unambiguous that the measles vaccine has saved lives and hundreds of thousands of painful illnesses every year. This is true independent of other medical advances.

 

 

The chart isn't taking all variables into consideration ;)

 

http://babydustdiaries.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/vaccinations-polio-paralyzes-kids/

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/10/03/scary-stats-iv-polio/

[KidsHappen]

I don't think that is an inescapable conclusion, but I also don't think that STDs are a punishment for immoral sexual behavior, rather the result of the evolution of opportunistic pathogens. After all, there are plenty of other illnesses that have nothing to do with moral/immoral behavior.

 

I can teach my children responsible sexual behavior and still not want them to be punished with cervical cancer or AIDS if they should deviate from this behavior.

 

Let me also note that a woman could get cervical cancer even if she were 100% monogamous, simply because her husband cheated on her. Or because he had been previously married and his first wife had cheated on him. Or a woman could get cervical cancer by being raped.

 

There are plenty of reasons to eliminate this disease that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to face the natural consequences of immoral sexual behavior.

 

 

We have had many previous discussions on this particular vaccination. Perhaps reading those threads would help you better understand the arguments against this vaccination. This would prevent us from rehashing them in this thread which already promises to be a long heated one.

[KingM]

I am beginning to think that a lot of people have me on ignore. :001_huh:

 

No way. :)

 

I think your point about autoimmune disorders is valid. I also wonder if my allergies aren't tied to an aggressive vaccination as a child. (I'll still take that over polio.)

 

My personal feeling is that they vaccinate too early and too aggressively. From the medical establishment's perspective, however, the longer people wait, the more likely people are to skip them entirely. I would like it if society could come to a consensus on which vaccines will legitimately save lives, by which age it is important to receive them by in order to maximize the lives saved and minimize side effects, and then society as a whole would stick to that schedule.

 

Which would, practically speaking, be impossible. Hence the discussions like this one. :)

[mommaduck]

I don't think that was the point. The point was the risk factor.

 

I am beginning to think that a lot of people have me on ignore. :001_huh:

 

I don't :) And I agree...the risk factors don't lay in favor of the vaccine ;)

[KidsHappen]

Once again, the death rate in 1990 was 2.83 per 1,000 cases. So we are saving roughly 1,100 lives per year.

 

Did you see the second part of my paragragh regarding the death rate?

Edited June 11, 2009 by KidsHappen

[KidsHappen]

The measles vaccine is saving at least 1,100 lives in the United States every year. 2.83 deaths per 1,000 cases, as of 1990, and 400,000 cases of measles per year (with a much lower population, it should be noted) in the year before the measles vaccine was introduced and virtually eliminated the disease.

 

1,100 lives is a benefit, isn't it?

 

As I stated my children have already had the disease. They do not also need the vaccine.

[KingM]

As I stated my children have already had the disease. They do not also need the vaccine.

 

I wouldn't argue that they do need it. I was discussing your comment that there were no societal benefits to the measles vaccine, although I now see that you probably meant, "What would be the societal benefits to vaccinating my children, who have already had the illness," in which case I'm sorry for misreading your post.

[mommaduck]

The measles vaccine is saving at least 1,100 lives in the United States every year. 2.83 deaths per 1,000 cases, as of 1990, and 400,000 cases of measles per year (with a much lower population, it should be noted) in the year before the measles vaccine was introduced and virtually eliminated the disease.

 

1,100 lives is a benefit, isn't it?

 

Depends...we don't know the full reaction rate (many do not get reported or are dismissed). In my daughter's case, she nearly lost her life to THIS vaccine (MMR), the risk of her getting measles was next to zilch, and out of being a "good parent" and following health department regulations (I was young and following "the rules") I nearly cost my daughter her life. So for this family, no, there wasn't a benefit, only near tragedy.

[Lolly]

So your pediatrician may have changed positions due to unforeseen complications arising.

 

 

 

My pediatrician had been practicing for many, many years. She was my dh's pediatrician when he was little. I seriously doubt that she saw something in the year that the cp vaccine came out that would overshadow over 30 years of previous experience. Not to mention that every other pediatrician on the planet went from calling cp a mild childhood illness to it becoming a deadly disease in that same year. Must have been something else. (That isn't to say that cp cannot cause death. Just that it is not at all a normal complication.)

[Lovedtodeath]

Many autoimmune diseases are just as dangerous and disabling as Polio. I know, my family has been personally affected by both.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have read of reports of death and severe injury from the Guardisil vaccine. On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but I would not be signing up for it right away. Cervical cancer from HPV is not a high risk disease IMO since it can easily be detected early with PAP smears. Why subject your child to the Guardisil vaccine if it does not pose a high risk and it's safety is unknown.

 

 

Again, I believe in a slowed down version of the vaccine schedule similiar to what Dr. Sear's recommends:) I think it is safer to have a slowed down schedule-please refer to my previous posts in this thread:)

 

 

I also question giving vaccines to children for which they are not at high risk of getting the disease such as the hepatitis B vaccine. I think it is better to wait for some of these and possibly not recieve at all.

 

I did receive the hepatitis B series twice as a RN and it ended up not working! I still recommend it to health care professionals or those at high risk. However, in retrospect, I would have chosen not to give it to my ds at 2 weeks of age:sad:

 

 

Again, I do believe that the current vaccine schedule poses an increased risk of autism, food allergies, asthma, juvenile arthritis, and maybe even juvenile diabetes. I think some children over-react to all of these vaccines:sad:

 

 

I also want to re-iterate that I do believe that some vaccines have been a great benefit to everyone. I just question the current vaccine schedule and the necessity of some of the vaccines:)

[Lovedtodeath]

Isn't the Guardisil vaccine typically given to an adolescent? How is a slowed down schedule going to affect that?

[ciyates]

I don't think that is an inescapable conclusion, but I also don't think that STDs are a punishment for immoral sexual behavior, rather the result of the evolution of opportunistic pathogens. After all, there are plenty of other illnesses that have nothing to do with moral/immoral behavior.

 

I can teach my children responsible sexual behavior and still not want them to be punished with cervical cancer or AIDS if they should deviate from this behavior.

 

Let me also note that a woman could get cervical cancer even if she were 100% monogamous, simply because her husband cheated on her. Or because he had been previously married and his first wife had cheated on him. Or a woman could get cervical cancer by being raped.

 

There are plenty of reasons to eliminate this disease that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to face the natural consequences of immoral sexual behavior.

Actually it is very very very rare for a women to get cervical cancer from having one or two partners. Your risk is directly increased by your number of partners. While I did not realize that vaccines were such an issue I would not allow my daughter (if I had one) to have this vaccine. After a little research this particular vaccine leaves more questions unanswered. The current vaccine DOES NOT prevent cervical cancer. It reduces the risk of 3 particular strain (none of which are the most predominant). That information can be found on the makers website for verification purposes.

[KidsHappen]

I wouldn't argue that they do need it. I was discussing your comment that there were no societal benefits to the measles vaccine, although I now see that you probably meant, "What would be the societal benefits to vaccinating my children, who have already had the illness," in which case I'm sorry for misreading your post.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. :)

[Perry]

The current vaccine DOES NOT prevent cervical cancer. It reduces the risk of 3 particular strain (none of which are the most predominant). That information can be found on the makers website for verification purposes.

 

Can you provide some evidence for this?

 

Link

 

Gardasil in clinical trials has been shown to be 100% effective in preventing infection with HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases, and about 99% effective in preventing HPV strains 6 and 11, which together with HPV strains 16 and 18 cause about 90% of genital wart cases among women not already infected with these strains (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/19).

 

According to Dow Jones/CNNMoney.com, an analysis of two large Phase III clinical trials of Gardasil found that the vaccine showed cross-protection against precancerous lesions caused by an additional 10 HPV strains that cause about 16% of cervical cancers in Europe and 22% of cervical cancers worldwide. The clinical trials involved administering either three doses of Gardasil or a placebo to girls and women ages 15 to 26. The participants also underwent cervical-vaginal sampling and Pap tests at the beginning of the study and at six- to 12-month intervals for up to 48 months (Fontaine, Dow Jones/CNNMoney.com, 9/19).

 

The new data found that Gardasil reduced by nearly two-thirds the incidence of precancerous lesions caused by HPV for three of the most common HPV strains found in North America after strains 16 and 18. The three strains cause about 11% of cervical cancers worldwide. According to the AP/Daily News, the finding means that Gardasil provides at least partial protection to 90% of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer.

 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am not sure if Guardisil is in slowed down schedule but here is a link:

 

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/childrens-health/2008/12/11/a-parents-guide-to-managing-vaccinations.html

 

 

I think his slowed version is a good idea, but I still question the neccessity of some of the vaccines like Guardisil since it does not pose a high risk to the person or the community to not have it:)

 

In the 1960's we only had about 11 shots the first several years of life and I am still here;)

[Perry]

Actually, this explanation is more clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The majority of people who get disease have been vaccinated.
   

 

This is another argument frequently found in anti-vaccine literature - the implication being that this proves vaccines are not effective. In fact it is true that in an outbreak those who have been vaccinated often outnumber those who have not - even with vaccines such as measles, which we know to be about 98% effective when used as recommended.

This is explained by two factors. No vaccine is 100% effective. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. For reasons related to the individual, some will not develop immunity. The second fact is that in a country such as the United States the people who have been vaccinated vastly outnumber those who have not. Here's a hypothetical example of how these two factors work together.

In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 5 of the students have had two doses of measles vaccine, and so are fully immunized. The entire student body is exposed to measles, and every susceptible student becomes infected. The 5 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 995 who have been vaccinated, we would expect several not to respond to the vaccine. The efficacy rate for two doses of measles vaccine can be higher than 99%. In this class, 7 students do not respond, and they, too, become infected. Therefore 7 of 12, or about 58%, of the cases occur in students who have been fully vaccinated.

As you can see, this doesn't prove the vaccine didn't work - only that most of the children in the class had been vaccinated, so those who were vaccinated and did not respond outnumbered those who had not been vaccinated. Looking at it another way, 100% of the children who had not been vaccinated got measles, compared with less than 1% of those who had been vaccinated. Measles vaccine protected most of the class; if nobody in the class had been vaccinated, there would probably have been 1,000 cases of measles.

 

[Lovedtodeath]

 

In the 1960's we only had about 11 shots the first several years of life and I am still here;)

:iagree:

[Karen sn]

She wrongfully assumes that vacines guarantee immunity in the whole "herd immunity" scenario. Her bashing is so ill written I couldn't read the whole thing!

[Karen sn]

Tell it like it is!

[Perry]

It is possible that all vaccinated people are not effectively vaccinated but only certain people got the disease for some other reason.

 

 

There's no big mystery. We can measure their antibodies in the lab.

 

People who get the disease have low or nonexistent antibodies. People who have measurable antibodies don't get sick.

[JeanM]

 

In the 1960's we only had about 11 shots the first several years of life and I am still here;)

 

I was born in the 1960's too, and I'm still here too :001_smile:. Using the same logic: we never wore seat belts (never had car seats for kids either), and I'm still here. However, I always use my seat belt and require my kids to use seat belts and/or car seats. I like the fact that fewer children die in car accidents now, even I personally did not die as a child.

 

I did come close to dying due to secondary infection after a mild childhood illness (chicken pox). I didn't die, but my hospital stay was very traumatic for me and caused my family financial hardship.

 

I personally don't want to go back to the days before the small pox vaccine was invented. Is anyone actually debating that the small pox vaccine saved lives?

 

OTOH, I totally agree that diseases like the chicken pox (despite my bad experience) do not come into the same category as small pox.

 

Just my 2 cents...

Edited June 11, 2009 by JeanM
typo

[Perry]

I was born in the 1960's too, and I'm still here too :001_smile:. Using the same logic: we never wore seat belts (never had car seats for kids either), and I'm still here.

 

This is called survivor bias. Those who died aren't here to give their perspective. ;)

[Karen sn]

Well, that is, unless you've watched your immune-compromised child fighting for their life from a disease that's easily prevented in the general population through vaccines. Then it's possible someone *does* have an opinion. {just playing devil's advocate a bit...}

 

Funny though, because many recently vaccinated kids infect others.

This entire debate wrongly assumes that vaccines are safe AND THAT THEY WORK!!!!! It does not take into account that recently vaccinated kids are contagious.

 

Telling the rest of us that we should vaccinate because your kid is immunocompromised is ludicrous.

Why should I compromise my child's immune system?

To hyper stimulate my children's immune system and cause future problems (such as auto immune disease and autism and asthma, etc...) makes no sense at all.

 

Now if my kid has the sniffles - I won't bring her to your house to play.

 

ETA - where did your kid this illness? Could be that a recently vaccinated kud passed it on.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By JeanM I was born in the 1960's too, and I'm still here too :001_smile:. Using the same logic: we never wore seat belts (never had car seats for kids either), and I'm still here. However, I always use my seat belt and require my kids to use seat belts and/or car seats. I like the fact that fewer children die in car accidents now, even I personally did not die as a child.

 

I did come close to dying due to secondary infection after a mild childhood illness (chicken pox). I didn't die, but my hospital stay was very traumatic for me and caused my family financial hardship.

 

I personally don't want to go back to the days before the small pox vaccine was invented. Is anyone actually debating that the small pox vaccine saved lives?

 

 

:iagree: I just question the safety and neccessity of some of the vaccines like Guardisil. I also think that some vaccines should be given when children are older or possibly even when they are adults so as not to overwhelm the immune system. I think more research needs to be done on the safety of the vaccine schedule as it stands now since it has never been proven safe to give up to 8 different vaccines in one day to a young infant:)

 

As far as small pox, that is one vaccine that I wish was available to my ds since it was a deadly scourge unlike some of the vaccines that are given today such as cervical cancer which is easily treatable, detected, and prevented.:) Guardisil does seem like a good idea, but I am not sure if the safety has been proven yet since I have read of serious illness and death from the same.

 

As far as chicken pox vaccine, I am uncertain as to whether I want my ds to have it again soon since his immune system was overwhelmed in my opinion and resulted in severe life-threatening food allergies and possible mild asperger's. He had this vaccine as a toddler, but oops that batch was only 80% effective:glare: I will probably let him have as a young teenager. I just want to do more research.

 

 

I definately believe in the value of vaccines that prevent high risk diseases. I think the CDC needs to carefully evaluate the risks and the benefits of each vaccine and the schedule or timing of each vaccine:)

 

.

[KidsHappen]

There's no big mystery. We can measure their antibodies in the lab.

 

People who get the disease have low or nonexistent antibodies. People who have measurable antibodies don't get sick.

 

While this is theoretically possible, this is not what is actually done. Generally speaking we do not measure the antibodies of the vaccinated population that does not get sick so we have no way of knowing whether they have antibodies or not. And while we can measure them in people who do get sick we don't make a practice of doing so. In a documented case the vaccine status is documented if known but antibodies are rarely measured. If they have been vaccinated, it is usually just assumed that the vaccine was ineffective. I can't even get anyone to measure the antibodies of my children who have had the documented cases of childhood illness to prove that they don't need the vaccines.

[Lolly]

:iagree: I just question the safety and neccessity of some of the vaccines like Guardisil. I also think that some vaccines should be given when children are older or possibly even when they are adults so as not to overwhelm the immune system. I think more research needs to be done on the safety of the vaccine schedule as it stands now since it has never been proven safe to give up to 8 different vaccines in one day to a young infant:)

 

As far as small pox, that is one vaccine that I wish was available to my ds since it was a deadly scourge unlike some of the vaccines that are given today such as cervical cancer which is easily treatable, detected, and prevented.:) Guardisil does seem like a good idea, but I am not sure if the safety has been proven yet since I have read of serious illness and death from the same.

 

As far as chicken pox vaccine, I am uncertain as to whether I want my ds to have it again soon since his immune system was overwhelmed in my opinion and resulted in severe life-threatening food allergies and possible mild asperger's. He had this vaccine as a toddler, but oops that batch was only 80% effective:glare: I will probably let him have as a young teenager. I just want to do more research.

 

 

I definately believe in the value of vaccines that prevent high risk diseases. I think the CDC needs to carefully evaluate the risks and the benefits of each vaccine and the schedule or timing of each vaccine:)

 

.

 

I also think the CDC needs to realize that the way they are approaching new vaccines will cause even more people to question the older ones.

[Perry]

While this is theoretically possible, this is not what is actually done. Generally speaking we do not measure the antibodies of the vaccinated population that does not get sick so we have no way of knowing whether they have antibodies or not. And while we can measure them in people who do get sick we don't make a practice of doing so. In a documented case the vaccine status is documented if known but antibodies are rarely measured. If they have been vaccinated, it is usually just assumed that the vaccine was ineffective. I can't even get anyone to measure the antibodies of my children who have had the documented cases of childhood illness to prove that they don't need the vaccines.

 

:confused:

 

Sure it's done. It's done in outbreak investigations, it's done for research purposes, it's done in clinical trials.

 

It isn't done routinely for individual patients, because it doesn't affect their care in any way, and it is so well established that it would be a waste of time and resources.

[Wyndie]

I also think the CDC needs to realize that the way they are approaching new vaccines will cause even more people to question the older ones.

:iagree:

 

I believe the CDC is shooting itself in the foot having so many vaccines for mild illnesses. Immunizations are a good idea and have their place, but not against the majority of things that immunizations already exist for. They seem to think most people are sheep and will obey without thinking but that isn't the world we live in anymore. The day of doctor = GOD is gone. Too many people have questions and they are not being addressed adequately, they are being told to believe without question b/c THEY say so and here, have another vaccine while you're here.

[mommaduck]

:confused:

 

Sure it's done. It's done in outbreak investigations, it's done for research purposes, it's done in clinical trials.

 

It isn't done routinely for individual patients, because it doesn't affect their care in any way, and it is so well established that it would be a waste of time and resources.

 

Maybe you should review the news links towards the beginning of the thread about the intentional skewing of results in the scientific community...

[KidsHappen]

:confused:

 

Sure it's done. It's done in outbreak investigations, it's done for research purposes, it's done in clinical trials.

 

It isn't done routinely for individual patients, because it doesn't affect their care in any way, and it is so well established that it would be a waste of time and resources.

 

 

I have never heard of anyone personally having their antibodies measured when they had a childhood illness regardless of their immunization status and I have never read of this happening during outbreaks either.

 

I would have to read the actual studies for research and clinical trials. I can't exactly imagine how that would work though. Did they immunize people and then expose them to the disease? I can't imagine that passing an eithics board. Did they measure their antibodies just after they immunized them when they had just introduced the virus to their system? Did they do longitudal studies in which they compared the antibodies and rates of disease of all variable (vaxes with disease, vaxed without disease, non-vaxed with and without disease) for life? I have never seen these studies. My reading of the literature (granted it has been awhile) suggest that adequate studies have never been done and that basically immuzing the general population was the trials and that most studies that have been done were on the general population. It seems that the beginning studies were for short term safety only, not for long term safety, antibodies levels over time or efficiency. As I said, I haven't actually researched this recently so there may be new studies but if so I am not familiar with them.

[Kathy in MD]

The big thing that I don't understand is that many of these diseases are in fact mild when a child contracts them. Why vaccinate a child for a disease that does not pose a large risk to them?....

 

 

Because some of those simple childhood diseases do permanent damage as soon as the child hits puberty. And it's sometimes difficult to time puberty.

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, I am sure that my 2 month old was safe from illnesses that do permanent damage in puberty. He was not, however, safe from the vaccinations.

[Desert Rat]

Unfortunately, my view is very biased. I am the daughter of a man who is currently dying a slow and agonizing death because the polio vaccine was not yet invented.

We are all shaped by our experiences. This experience has shaped how I feel about vaccines as equally as mommaduck's was shaped by hers.

Neither of us are right or wrong. We only can do what we feel is best for our family.

I do agree, however, that vaccines do rely on wide spread compliance to be effective. With respect to the HEALTHY population, the benefits far out weigh the risks. Just my very, very humble opinion.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Unfortunately, my view is very biased. I am the daughter of a man who is currently dying a slow and agonizing death because the polio vaccine was not yet invented.

:grouphug: I have had to watch my Dad waste away with Post-Polio Syndrome. He used to be the strongest man in the world, even if he couldn't move his legs. It is heartbreaking. I am so sorry for what you are going through.

[mommaduck]

Unfortunately, my view is very biased. I am the daughter of a man who is currently dying a slow and agonizing death because the polio vaccine was not yet invented.

We are all shaped by our experiences. This experience has shaped how I feel about vaccines as equally as mommaduck's was shaped by hers.

Neither of us are right or wrong. We only can do what we feel is best for our family.

I do agree, however, that vaccines do rely on wide spread compliance to be effective. With respect to the HEALTHY population, the benefits far out weigh the risks. Just my very, very humble opinion.

Thank you and :grouphug:

[Kathy in MD]

No one is suggesting this. We are saying that all things should be taken into consideration and that it is a PERSONAL choice of parents based on their circumstances, lifestyle, place of living, physical and genetic issues, etc.

 

The article called *ME* a "freerider" because I do not vaccinate my children due to nearly having one of my children DIE from a vaccination. .......

 

I can see why you are upset with the OP's article, because it doesn't allow that for your dc react badly to vaccines. I'm also not thinking that those who are advocating a slower pace of vaccination or even picking and choosing which vaccines to to use.

 

It's the individuals who keep talking about how the medical establishment is out to make money and doctors are paid off by drug companies,etc and parents are too lazy to take care of sick children that I think are indirectly driving parents away from any vacinations.

 

But those childhood diseases AREN'T as benine as we remember. I do remember that German measles (or mumps?) frequently caused blindness. I remember because I had to sunglasses inside and couldn't even look out a window for over a week. I, as a compliant 1st grader, still got into trouble because I couldn't bear not seeing what was happenning outside on one occasion. How much more difficult for a toddler with the disease and his exhausted mother, especially if the toddler was an escape artist as some are.

[mommaduck]

It's the individuals who keep talking about how the medical establishment is out to make money and doctors are paid off by drug companies,etc and parents are too lazy to take care of sick children that I think are indirectly driving parents away from any vacinations.

 

 

 

 

I want to touch on this part of your post.

 

On lazy parents...it's not lazy parents, but rather "less time off work/school" is how certain vaccinations were promoted. I also remember when CPvax first came out and that is how it was billed to both my doctor and myself.

 

Unfortunately, we have honest people and not so honest people in this world...and yes, many are out to make a buck, even in the pharmaceutical companies and Big Pharm is the main "educator" of many physicians (they intentionally try to place themselves and their sales reps in this position). You have good and respectful doctors, you have doctors that take short cuts, doctors that think they are God, and doctors that are just flat out quacks (no pun intended from me ;) ). I don't assume every doctor is an ignorant jerk. I do assume that they are human and could fall under any category and my best protection is self education and being my own best advocate. I will take what a doctor says, what I know of that particular doctor and where my trust range with him/her is, and research/find second opinions as neccessary. Really, that is what everyone should do.

 

I've had to advocate for my stepmama before...a woman I didn't even know. My father is not the brightest crayon in the box and is a bit of a selfish jerk. He wasn't going to permit an "experimental procedure", guaranteeing my stepmama's death, but looked at me and landed the decision in my lap. The doctor was kind, sat with me and explained the entire procedure. From what I knew of stepmama's condition (had talked with both the doctor and relatives), hearing the specifics of the procedure, and understanding basic human anatomy, I weighed the risk of the procedure to be in her favour. It saved her life. But I had insisted on being completely informed. It wasn't a flippant yes/no and it wasn't a "do whatever you want, doctor".

 

 

 

But yes, you are correct in your first part. I was irritated with any article where the author thought they could couch the issue some simplistically. The issue is far more expansive and it's articles like these that cause much trouble for those of us on this side of the fence. I respect others that have made or have had to make different decisions. I just ask for the same respect (and WTM is a great place because of that :) ).

Edited June 11, 2009 by mommaduck

[Caroline4kids]

if you haven't watched your child react to a vaccine you have no opinion regarding my choice to not do it anymore!!!

 

:iagree:

We went through nightmares with vaccine reactions. I thought all was hunky-dorey until my child was hospitalized...twice.

[Lovedtodeath]

mommaduck

 

 

::applause::

[Orthodox6]

"Consequences" is not the same word as "punishment". I said, implied, and intended nothing about punishment. Reckless sexual behaviour has consequences. Some of those consequences include illness and/or death. Please be careful of how, lacking information, you possibly may be classifying me.

 

 

 

I don't think that is an inescapable conclusion, but I also don't think that STDs are a punishment for immoral sexual behavior, rather the result of the evolution of opportunistic pathogens. After all, there are plenty of other illnesses that have nothing to do with moral/immoral behavior.

 

I can teach my children responsible sexual behavior and still not want them to be punished with cervical cancer or AIDS if they should deviate from this behavior.

 

Let me also note that a woman could get cervical cancer even if she were 100% monogamous, simply because her husband cheated on her. Or because he had been previously married and his first wife had cheated on him. Or a woman could get cervical cancer by being raped.

 

There are plenty of reasons to eliminate this disease that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to face the natural consequences of immoral sexual behavior.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Caroline4kids]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

 

 

Amen.

[KidsHappen]

So what you are essentially saying is that Tess should chance the vac and its possible reactions so that your child won't chance the infection. Where is the logic in that?

 

And if you are referring to the chicken pox vac, that is not even a mandatory vac anyway so your child would be exposed no matter what the "normal pool of children" might do. That is a voluntary vac as well it should be.

 

There is no guarantee that any child, vaccinated or not, is going to *always* be protected. If your peace of mind for your child comes from the belief that a vaccination always works or protects forever then you might want to read more on the subject. They do wear off and sometimes even those who are vaccinated get the disease they were supposedly vaccinated for. It is and never has been a fool proof 100% effective way to prevent disease. There are many children that pay the ultimate price for their vaccinations and there are many children that pay the ultimate price for not having them. There are always risks for every action or lack of action we take as parents.

 

It should still be, always, a parent's choice.

 

 

:iagree: Since everyone agrees that vaccines are neither 100% safe or effective, I think that it really comes down to the fact that each parent must make an informed decision about their own children after taking into consideration both the benefits and risks of each option. Then each parent can take care to protect their children based on the risks they are willing to assume.

[mommaduck]

:iagree: Since everyone agrees that vaccines are neither 100% safe or effective, I think that it really comes down to the fact that each parent must make an informed decision about their own children after taking into consideration both the benefits and risks of each option. Then each parent can take care to protect their children based on the risks they are willing to assume.

Amen!

[joannqn]

I found the original article to be annoying on so many fronts.

 

We didn't consider herd immunity when we researched vaccines and made our decision. We are very much aware that diseases cause short term and long term damage, including death. We are also aware that vaccines cause short term and long term damage, including death. We decided that damage and/or death from either cause would be very difficult to bear; however, we'd be able to handle it better if one of our children died from a naturally occurring disease than from an unnatural vaccine that we authorized. Kind of like the difference between our child being an innocent bystander hit by a stray bullet or being placed, by us, into the line of fire where they may or may not be hit. In either case, the damage/death would cause grief, but in the latter, we'd feel much more responsible.

 

Add to that, we considered our family history. We have family history of seizures on both sides of the family (my brother, my husband's cousin, my husband), food allergies (my daughter) and intolerances (most of my extended and immediate family), and allergies to medicines (my kids and myself). These issues increased the risk of the vaccines.

 

Will I be devastated if one of my kids dies from a disease for which a vaccine exists? Yes. Will I rush out to vaccinate the other kids as a result of that death? No.

 

I also saw arguments relating to trusting our doctors in some things and not other things. I do not blindly trust any of my doctors as they are human, not God. They have to earn my trust for me to continue seeing them and even then, I do my own research and thinking.

 

I love our pediatrician; we have a mutual respect for each other's opinions. When he argued for vitamin K injection after my youngest son's birth, we listened to his arguments and agreed to give him the injection. When he argued for circumcision when the same child was hospitalized three weeks later with a UTI and RSV, we chose not to follow his advice. Turns out circumcision was totally unnecessary, and I am not glad that we didn't follow that advice.

 

I've also had a doctor tell me to continue taking a medicine that I was allergic to. His suggestion was to take Benadryl with each dose of the medicine even though the Benadryl was not reducing the swelling in my throat. Should I have blindly followed his advice even if it meant I was at greater risk of dying from an anaphylatic shock...all for the treatment of an ear infection for which there were other medicines available? Further, I found out later that my allergy to this medication is more severe than I had thought. My youngest was given that same medicine when he was in the hospital. He broke out in a "heat rash" despite being undressed in a cold room, and I broke out in full-body hives. Over the course of the next four days, I was unable to convince the nurses and doctors that my son's "heat rash" and my hives were both caused by his medicine. Finally, after four days we saw a doctor who agreed with me and changed his medicine. His "heat rash" (which was really tiny hives) and my hives were gone in less than 24 hours. I now make sure none of my family is given that medicine

 

In my experience (these examples and others), doctors can and do make mistakes. Therefore, I do not blindly follow their advice regardless of what the issue is, whether it be vaccines or something else.