Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[Lovedtodeath]

If I adopted a child - I would still not vacc, but I would make sure to cover my bases even though I might not be able to breastfeed.

I think my point was missed entirely.

I really liked the majority of your posts on this thread. I also see your point... from my standpoint, an outsider who has not lost a close one to a disease that has a vax, and who goes to a ND and uses natural supplements to build up my child's immune system.

 

But, to someone who has lost a child that was close to them (friend, relative) your questions were very insensitive, no matter what the circumstances.

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

I just have to comment that this was one of the best posts of the thread, IMO. I saw no one else commenting on it. :iagree:

[Karen sn]

Nevermind. I need to step away from this thread. My blood pressure is over the top.

 

Karen - I sent you a PM.

I was not casting blame at all, nor did I intend to hurt you.

I was sincerely curious as to the circumstances behind this tragedy.

I know so many people who do not vac and their kids have never been sick.

This was a first for me and I wondered what this child came down with and why he died. So many kids get measles and Chicken Pox - and they do not die.

I am sorry that you took it wrong - I never intended to hurt you.

[MomLovesClassics]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

 

I just have to comment that this was one of the best posts of the thread, IMO. I saw no one else commenting on it. :iagree:

:iagree:

Edited June 12, 2009 by MomLovesClassics

[Karen sn]

I really liked the majority of your posts on this thread. I also see your point... from my standpoint, an outsider who has not lost a close one to a disease that has a vax, and who goes to a ND and uses natural supplements to build up my child's immune system.

 

But, to someone who has lost a child that was close to them (friend, relative) your questions were very insensitive, no matter what the circumstances.

 

Thank you.

The older I get, the more injustice I see...the more I realize that at any minute my kid could be hurt or dead and I would have no control over it at all. It's just an awful sad fact of life that I think about quite frequently - too much internet news as of late.

 

Because she brought it up and I have not heard of this in any of my circles - I wanted to know. Perhaps I came off condescending - it was not my intention. My point was that I take risks all the time but try to counter them when I can. I am not denying that to not vacc carries a risk. Every choice we make as parents carries them. She says this kid died because of no vacc. I honestly just wanted to know why and which illness.

[mommaduck]

Thank you.

The older I get, the more injustice I see...the more I realize that at any minute my kid could be hurt or dead and I would have no control over it at all. It's just an awful sad fact of life that I think about quite frequently - too much internet news as of late.

 

Because she brought it up and I have not heard of this in any of my circles - I wanted to know. Perhaps I came off condescending - it was not my intention. My point was that I take risks all the time but try to counter them when I can. I am not denying that to not vacc carries a risk. Every choice we make as parents carries them. She says this kid died because of no vacc. I honestly just wanted to know why and which illness.

 

It's okay, Karen. I was curious also, but didn't know what kind of toes I would be stepping on to ask. :grouphug:

[Peek a Boo]

This thread has gotten unwieldy,

 

Now THAT is a candidate for understatement of the year, lol! ;)

 

Would I be restating your original hope accurately by saying you hoped to start a discussion about the sociology of vaccination? In other words, what are the social effects of a population that implements (majority? 100%?) vaccination versus a population that refrains from (majority? 100%) vaccination.

.................

Don't regret that you authored the thread, though. There has been lively give-and-take, imo. More importantly, there has been a very low incidence of hostility and/or ruffled feathers.

 

excellent analysis and advice. :)

[Peela]

I guess my point is that just because a doctor is a naturopath or "alternative medicine" or disagrees with vaccines doesn't make them immune to conflicts of interest or outside influences. It just may be that those influences are different than the ones in traditional medicine.

 

It seems to me that often in the community that chooses not to vaccinate there is an attitude of "Please respect my opinion and have an open mind. But if you disagree with me it must be because you are uneducated or don't have an open mind."

 

 

Alice, I am just skimming through pages of posts and yours caught my eye as a very balanced one. I am a trained naturopath, as is my husband, and we did a delayed vaccination schedule. Both dh and I feel naturopaths DO have conflict of interest, the same as doctors (although doctors are just trained by conflicts of interest- they do not usually profit from it, in Australia anyway). Most of the workshops we are supposed to attend for ongoing professional education are run by companies who produce supllements. Naturopaths generally speaking- not all but generally- peddle drugs, they are just more supposedly "natural" ones.

Our kids are healthy, and we saw no problem with delayed vccination for them. Dh was adamant. If it was up to me, I may not have done it, but there do not seem to be any problems.

 

You are right- anti- vax people often feel pro -vax people have not educated themselves. But I know many anti- vax people in the circles I mix- and the truth is, I know very few who have actually done the research themselves. Most are just riding the anti-vax wave in the alternate circles I live in. I do believe many pro-vax people are the same, though. They just latch onto an emotional position.

 

It's hard work to do the research yourself. Its a highly volatile and emotional issue. And as far as I am concerned, no one can completely know if they are doing the right thing whether they do or don't. They can feel confident, but that could just be a false sense of security. We dont know. I do believe some kids react badly. It's a risk. Either way.

[Peela]

For that matter - if we were all truly concerned about "the herd," would we enable the sickest of children to survive only because of millions of dollars worth of medical treatment and then allow them to breed further weakening our herd? NO. Of course not if we were a bunch of cows.

 

But we are humans and we don't have herds. The use of the herd analogy is what allows the propoganda to continue. If we're going to compare ourselves to livestock in order to justify the mass poisoning of children, then we ought to take a good long look at the other aspects of herding in which only the healthy and strong are allowed to breed and the weaklings are removed from the gene pool if not the entire herd!

 

Not saying that we should prevent sick children from seeking advanced medical care. Just saying that we need to get over the livestock comparisons because they truly don't compare at all with the human race!

 

oh yeah,really excellent point! I think of this one a lot! It's not very politically correct though, is it? What are we doing to the human race by allowing the weak to survive- and enabling the infertile to reproduce for that matter?

 

There are consequences for everything and I sure we haven't seen the last of them. I also am not saying I would prevent my, personal child from surviving if I needed to get expert medical care but I do wonder if we will all become so soft and weak in the next few generations that we will just all die off anyway. Or at least, large proportions of us. At least- it is only western civilization that has these luxuries. In the underdevloped world, it is still survival of the fittest. They may end up fitter than us.

[Peek a Boo]

For that matter - if we were all truly concerned about "the herd," would we enable the sickest of children to survive only because of millions of dollars worth of medical treatment and then allow them to breed further weakening our herd? NO. Of course not if we were a bunch of cows.

 

But we are humans and we don't have herds. The use of the herd analogy is what allows the propoganda to continue. If we're going to compare ourselves to livestock in order to justify the mass poisoning of children, then we ought to take a good long look at the other aspects of herding in which only the healthy and strong are allowed to breed and the weaklings are removed from the gene pool if not the entire herd!

 

Not saying that we should prevent sick children from seeking advanced medical care. Just saying that we need to get over the livestock comparisons because they truly don't compare at all with the human race!

 

I missed this one --thank Peela for pointing it out.

 

great points.

 

Yes, this is another one of those Inconvenient Truths out there that I do confess I've pondered.

 

And come to the same conclusion as Karen. :)

[KidsHappen]

As the person who started the thread, I naively believed that we would be discussing the ethics of vaccinating or not vaccination, with the assumption that vaccines save lives, even if there was disagreement/uncertainty about which vaccines are necessary and whether or not certain people could or should opt out. I knew that the HPV vaccine was hugely controversial and that many (including myself) believe that the MMR is given too early in life and should perhaps be broken into its component parts.

 

I didn't realize that some people would have such strong beliefs against vaccinations in general. As such, the discussion has evolved in a different direction than I had expected.

 

This is definitely one of the hot topic buttons but that is no reason to shy away from it. What better way to explore difficult subject matter than with stimulating conversation with educated people. I will say that when I first responded I tried to stick to just the ethical matter but when the ethical judgements are questioned based on the technical matters involved well then of course the conversation is going to delve deeper. However, even though this thread got long and unweildy it seemed to remain fairly civil which is better than many do. And now you are a select group of member here to be responsible for one of those threads.

[Dirtroad]

Sorry, great reply already made about variables in the decline of measles that we not being considered. MommaDuck covered it well!

 

Been offline a bit & fell behind in this conversation.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Dirtroad

[KinderSafari]

I heard an excellent talk at a homeschool convention a few years ago by Dr. Jay Wile (scientist and Apologia author). I have hear SO many different sides of this conversation and most of them black and white.

 

Dr. Wile was an excellent speaker. He gave the scientific point of view. Not a black or white answer.

 

This is my BRIEF summary of his one hour lecture:

Vaccinations have improved the health of the world GREATLY.

Side effects are ALWAYS possible in any drug.

Weigh the risks, be smart.

His number one tip: wait until a vaccination (or any drug/medicine) has been on the market for 7 to 10 years before using it.

 

If a drug/medicine/vaccination passes the FDA tests for the general population - that is fairly good. But once used by the masses, that is an even better test - and problems unseen in their initial tests will generally surface and be discovered within the first 3 to 5 years.

 

Why? Because when any new drug/vaccination hits the market - scientists are on the move to see if they can find something wrong with it. If a scientist can find something wrong with a drug that's already been through all the hoops and been approved - that scientist becomes a "medical rock star" in the science community. They have then proven their scientific genius, so to say. :)

 

And in the end, of course, he said - YOU need to be the one to weigh all the evidence and risks and be responsible for the decision.

 

This was a great "middle ground" decision for me. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is value in medicin and vaccinations. But use wisdom and be prudent.

[mommaduck]

I heard an excellent talk at a homeschool convention a few years ago by Dr. Jay Wile (scientist and Apologia author). I have hear SO many different sides of this conversation and most of them black and white.

 

Dr. Wile was an excellent speaker. He gave the scientific point of view. Not a black or white answer.

 

This is my BRIEF summary of his one hour lecture:

Vaccinations have improved the health of the world GREATLY.

Side effects are ALWAYS possible in any drug.

Weigh the risks, be smart.

His number one tip: wait until a vaccination (or any drug/medicine) has been on the market for 7 to 10 years before using it.

 

If a drug/medicine/vaccination passes the FDA tests for the general population - that is fairly good. But once used by the masses, that is an even better test - and problems unseen in their initial tests will generally surface and be discovered within the first 3 to 5 years.

 

Why? Because when any new drug/vaccination hits the market - scientists are on the move to see if they can find something wrong with it. If a scientist can find something wrong with a drug that's already been through all the hoops and been approved - that scientist becomes a "medical rock star" in the science community. They have then proven their scientific genius, so to say. :)

 

And in the end, of course, he said - YOU need to be the one to weigh all the evidence and risks and be responsible for the decision.

 

This was a great "middle ground" decision for me. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is value in medicin and vaccinations. But use wisdom and be prudent.

 

He must be lightening up, because your notes are a different tone than I received from him in email where those of us that do not vaccinate (no consideration given towards those that have had previous deaths/reactions in their children) were ignorant (he was a bit snotty about it).

 

You have to wade through his works as well.

[MomLovesClassics]

I do not have all the facts on this topic. Reading on other message boards, there seems to be some strong opinions on this topic. Some parents say they would rather have their child have complications such as autism from the side effects of vaccinations than to not vaccinate. Some parents state that if they knew of children who did not vaccinate, they would keep their vaccinated child away from those children. Some even go so far as to say those who do not vaccinate are inhumane, bad parents, should be jailed, and heaven forbid be charged with murder should the worst happen. Some even ridicule that famous actress Jenny something. I do have opinions. We should be more tolerable of other peoples opinions and choices. No one should be so prejudice against those who do not vaccinate as to treat them like the scum of the earth. Vaccines should not be forced on the population, as far as I know vaccines are a requirement by the government. People who do not vaccinate are not bad people, people who do vaccinate are not bad people. This is only my opinion, but it appears vaccines have taken credit where credit is not due. It appears vaccines are made from ingredients that most people would not eat drink or inject into their bodies. It appears no long term studies have been done on vaccines. The vaccine list has grown and continues to grow. If we as humans are afraid of disease that we think we need a couple of hundred vaccines perhaps we should all live in our own bubbles. The public as a whole thinks nothing of asking for a cleaner environment, yet that same public as a whole thinks nothing of injecting strange ingredients from vaccines into their bodies. I have seen some people who have suffered some severe reactions to vaccines and told by medical professionals it was normal. I can say that I have never had a medical professional attempt to tell me what was in any vaccines, or attempt to tell me of any side effects from vaccines, only that it is important to get them to protect yourself. I myself would appreciate some real information about vaccines. No one knows for sure how many die because of vaccines, or if a vaccine would have really protected someone. In my opinion no one really knows much about vaccines. To me it appears that many health problems have increased since vaccines were introduced, but during that time other things were happening too. Nobody knows for sure. We can speculate, come to our own conclusions, and make our own decisions regarding the situation. It would be nice to have that freedom of choice without having to request exemptions for this or that reason. I am for freedom of choice not forced vaccines.

[Dirtroad]

..... It seems like more of a right fight than an actual debate to me. One side wants to be declared Right, period. Not gonna happen. There are more than enough studies to contradict each other til our children are old enough to take over the argument :lol:.... Aren't we all tired of having to defend our parenting choices as homeschoolers?

 

Impish, I think some of the defensiveness comes from the TONE and judgements passed by the original article. I think it attacks or insults those who have studied & thought all of this through on many, many levels. That may be something that opened the doors to some of the defensive posture of the "weary or anti-vaccine" crowd.

 

As for tired of defending parenting choices.... AMEN!!!!

[Blessedfamily]

.....

As for tired of defending parenting choices.... AMEN!!!!

 

:patriot: You said it. Amen.

[Joanne]

Don't hate me for bringing this back up. :D:001_huh:

 

I wanted to say that there is no perfect, absolutely comfortable, risk free vaccine choice. I personally perceive unhealthy extremism (and bad science) on both sides of this debate. I do think the complex issues involved in for profit corporations, doctors with limited time and tremendous liability and many other factors make vaccines a complicated issue. To embrace a complete for or against policy seems, to me, the least informed.

 

I believe that each vaccine needs to be individually evaluated for each family and each person within the family. I am skeptical about the depth of knowledge about each vaccine, about the ever increasing number of vaccines and the development to market process.

 

I am *also* skeptical - or flat out deny- those who don't believe that some vaccines have done much good in terms of health.

 

I am very, very worried that the onslaught of multiple vaccines, some questionable in development, dose and intent are a co-factor of autoimmune disease is susceptible adults and children. I am more worried about this than the immediate risk of vaccine related damage.

 

I believe - with EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING - the parents who assert that they had a normally developing child who became autistic after vaccines. That does not mean I believe that all spectrum persons were vaccine induced; it certainly does not mean that it's a risk for everyone. I believe in a genetic predisposition to certain vaccines = autism.

 

 

Politically I stand firm that vaccines should never be compulsory.

[Lovedtodeath]

I was wanting to ask, and Joanne brought it back up. :D

 

Could someone explain to me how this "herd immunity" idea works? I really don't understand it. (Or do we not agree on this either?) So my partially vaxed child is protected because the majority of the population is vaxed? An unvaxed child puts everyone else at higher risk? A vaxed person can still be a carrier? If a vaxed person can still be a carrier, hten how would herd immunity protect an unvaxed child?

[kiana]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

 

It's pretty short. I was trying to summarize it and kept coming up with something almost as long as the article.

[WishboneDawn]

Politically I stand firm that vaccines should never be compulsory.

 

I agree.

 

Personally, I think the science behind vaccines is very good and most of what I've seen disputing the general safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been, IMO, pretty thin and questionable BUT debating the science behind a matter doesn't mean I don't think people should not have the right to refuse vaccination.

 

I think whether vaccines are generally safe (and I'm being careful to say generally because, like anything, there are risks) and whether vaccines should be compulsory are too very different issues. There have been times where I've been arguing against people linking vaccines to autism or claiming they're generally harmful on one message board but arguing for a parent's right to refuse vaccines for their child on another and I don't see anything contradictory about that.

[kiana]

I agree.

 

Personally, I think the science behind vaccines is very good and most of what I've seen disputing the general safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been, IMO, pretty thin and questionable BUT debating the science behind a matter doesn't mean I don't think people should not have the right to refuse vaccination.

 

I think whether vaccines are generally safe (and I'm being careful to say generally because, like anything, there are risks) and whether vaccines should be compulsory are too very different issues. There have been times where I've been arguing against people linking vaccines to autism or claiming they're generally harmful on one message board but arguing for a parent's right to refuse vaccines for their child on another and I don't see anything contradictory about that.

 

This sums up my feelings 100%.