ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
I don't want to start an argument or be judges/seen as judging others, but I could really do with some advice.
My brother was Autistic. He had Fragile X syndrome and after being tested I also tested positive for it, but my 'symptoms' are much milder than his were due to the fact that I have a healthy X chromosome to balance out the 'bad' one.
Now my question is on the MMR. I know the study linking MMR to Autism has been discredited, but OH's Aunt is a Caffcas worker and has seen parents who swear blind their child was healthy and happy and literally changed over night after having the MMR.
I, like any parent, only want the best for my daughter. She is 10 months old so will need to have it in a couple of months and I am still unsure what would be best.
All NHS guidelines recommend the combined injection, but obviously they would do. But, once given, this isn't something that can be taken back if there is a problem.
But with the single vaccines, the NHS website states there is an ncteased risk of my daughter catching one of the diseases before she is immunised and they mentioned that all the clinics which offer the single vaccines are unlicensed, so obviously that has scared me!
I know this is long and I sound like a PFB mother (which I am!) but I just don't know what to do.
Help me please?
I think I might bow out of this discussion as I don't really think you are addressing the issue. I am not saying "I am alright, your damaged child is your problem", I am saying "Your damaged child is neither a reason not an excuse to damage other children".
I still don't get your point about tax. Would you may more tax for research into my DD's very rare genetic condition? And to reduce extremely lengthy waiting times for seeing specialists (there are so few of them)? And for the many home adjustments she may need if she has the condition? And for the inovative orthopaedics that may improve her quality of life?
Often the vaccine-damaged child abuses their siblings. Unreported because parents know that the unaffected children will be removed for their safety as it is cheaper than properly supporting the family or placing the child with damage.
Would YOU pay more tax to a)ensure decent compensation to the family, b)appropriate services for the family, c)enable the parents to continue to work, d)provide counselling d)ensure the damaged child has access to appropriate equipment for free.
Because if you wouldn't, then you are no better than anyone else with an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude as none of the above happens, and even a legal battle of a life time gets little more than a note saying 'sorry' once legal fees have been paid off.
I just re-read your message, who abuses the siblings of children affected by side-effects of vaccination?
Starlight I am sorry but I don't understand your argument. I will accept that the compensation system is not working (I don't know much about it to be honest, but happy to take your word for it), but how will spreading lethal/dangeorous diseases through non-vaccination ever help with that? The problems with compensation are not a fault of the vaccine, vaccines have known side-effects, it's the price we pay for protection from the disease. It's terrible that only some, random people pay this price, which is why compenstion exists, but I don't see why penalising a different but much greater set of other random people through non-vaccination would right the wrongs of delayed/inadequate compensation.
I don't get your point about tax either. Would YOU pay more tax for more research on the rare genetic condition my DD may have? There are many deserving causes that will not be adequately funded because no one gives up 100% of their income for tax/charities.
Boob. Would YOU pay more tax to fund the research and compensation programme?
'If vaccine damage can be proved then of course generous compensation should be paid.'
Yes. But it isn't. Instead families are vilified and tortured for years and barely get enough compensation to cover the costs of expert opinion and legal fees.
You don't just get a disabled or dead child, your whole family plummets into poverty and your other children get neglected and often abused.
If this were not the case, I woukd be more supportive of the vaccination programme.
Starlight I don't know your story but I assume you or a member of your family were unlucky enough to suffer from the rare vaccine side-effects - you have my sympathy. I also think it's tragic that you had to fight for support and compensation, that is not right.
However, this does not justify you passing on the same harm to another, innocent third party. Inflicting a further injustice cannot be the way forward. Just because you have suffered a grave injustice does not absolve you of any moral responsibility towards anyone else.
This isn't a zero sum game, starlight. If vaccine damage can be proved then of course generous compensation should be paid. We need more research into vaccine damage so that we can find out and hopefully anticipate which children might be vulnerable, as well as finding methods of proving vaccine damage. Then we need a statutory compensation scheme which takes into account the cost of raising a child with disabilities.
However, that does not excuse us from thinking about people other than ourselves and our DCs as well when we are trying to make a decision about vaccinating or not. The decisions we take nearly always involve other people, and I'm not just talking about vaccination here - and I stand by my point that thinking only about yourself when making major life decisions is morally dubious. The 'I'm all right Jack' attitudes that have led to an increase in disability hatred are part of that mindset - if you can't be bothered to think about the potential impact of what you decide on the world around you then yes, I have a real problem with that. Hard thought needs to go into hard decisions, whichever way they turn out.
Personally I have vaccinated my children - I actually respect the right of other people not to do so, even though I vehemently disagree with them. But I would expect them to have arrived at their decision by thinking not just about themselves and their families, but about the wider ramifications as well. I'd expect the same of anyone who did decide to vaccinate. We are thinking beings, we have an obligation to use our intelligence.
'It's part of being a responsible member of the whole of society.
Well I happen to think that a responsible society would take care of their individual members who DO suffer from vaccine damage, rather than make them battle YEARS of denial whilst every aspect of their family life is critically examined, and their home sold to pay for legal fees before accessing the paltry compensation.
To all those who are saying you can't take decisions about vaccination while thinking about other people besides yourself and your DC - whyever not? It's part of being a responsible member of the whole of society. I'm really by this attitude.
Unfortunatly the company no linger supply the mumps vaccination to the uk and have no intention to in the near future, so mumps singles are not an option anymore
I was so worried about my ds having the mmr, although it has been disproven that there is a link to autism I don't believe a word the government say, and it really pisses me off that I'm unable to chose to singularly vaccinate my child.
I ummed and erred until I saw a video link on you tube by Penn and teller, and made me feel more comfortable getting the mmr. Ds 2 is due his soon and he will get the mmr but at 13 months rather than 12onths as five injections in one go us too much
Please watch this vid it might help . Sorry phone won't link
But go on YouTube search penn and teller vaccinations, it's the 1min 31s
I have been partially deaf as a result of having measles when I was 6,
My ds had febrile convulsions after his first MMR jab so our GP recommended that dd had reduced amounts of the vaccine-if she had no reaction to the first shot she could have the second.This was in 1975.Both my dc were fine eventually and both have had their dc vaccinated on schedule.
Amy there are lots of conditions where a genetic predisposition is triggered by an event or life circumstance. However, autism really is very heritable. More than lots of other conditions. I firmly believe that people are born with it and that is all. People have had plenty of ideas about autism in the past (Google Refrigerator Mother) and they have been discredited.
It is not possible for anyone to make vaccination decisions without taking the welfare of other people into account.
Yes, for my child it would be best not to be vaccinated for anything AS LONG AS everyone else was vaccinated, some of those people were exposed to the side-effects of the vaccines but the diseases were eradicated. So my child would benefit 100% with no risk, others would take 100% of the risk and the benefit of the vaccines and a minority would suffer the harm of side-effects for all our benefit.
However, that only works on a purely individualistic level. As soon as everyone reasons this way, not enough people vaccinate and herd immunity is lost, the diseases re-emerge and unvaccinated people stand to lose the most (they avoid the risk of side-effects but take on the risk of the diseases).
Therefore vaccination reasoning has to take the welfare of others into account.
I am sure someone more familiar with game theory would make the point better.
The thing that worries me about it all is what if the MMR doesn't "cause autism" (as there's obviously a lot of people who didn't have it who are diagnosed with autism) but what if it causes some autism. That's the part I can't let go of and weighs on my mind a lot. What if some people are genetically predisposed (is tht the right word?) to having it and it takes a trigger to set it in motion? Maybe in some kids the trigger is the high temperature after the MMR or in some kids its something else that happens earlier in life. That's the part that worries me a lot. What if its dormant in my dd and the MMR is enough to trigger it?
I know that could be a load of rubbish but I still can't stop worrying about it
The study has been discredited, the fear is irrational, get the MMR and protect your baby as the NHS recommends.
My sister is severely myopic due to measles. My brother has some hearing loss. This was back in the sixties and seventies when it was common to lose a child to measles.
Thanks for all the advice and opinions (sorry for taking so long, my daughter appears to have decided that sleep is now optional).
Just to make clear, never once was I considering not vaccinating her. I was deciding between the MMR and the Single jabs. But seeing as you are now unable to get the Mumps as a single vaccine I think I will probably go for the MMR.
It also annoyed me greatly that despite my GP surgery being sent records to show that my ds's had been immunised, and the records to prove that they were (mostly) immune, they still questioned me at every appointment and sent countless letters telling me that I had to give MMR.
The same thing happened to us when we had singles Betty, although our paediatrician offered the blood test to check immunity. We took him up on that, and it turned out that the rubella one hadn't worked with one of our ds's. We gave him a second rubella, but didn't test again after that thinking that if it hadn't worked, he either had some natural immunity, and there was no guarantee that a third one would work if we had been prepared to inject him again anyway.
If the second rubella injection did work, ds was immune much earlier than he would have been if he'd had MMR.
My DS had the singles....he did not have the booster. The local GP surgery tried to make me agree for DS to have it but I checked with my specialist and he confirmed the booster was not needed.
I am quite surprised that posters have mentioned measles and hearing loss. I have had measles, so has DH, so did our siblings, our parents and nearly all our friends as children. My children have also had measles and are fine. I know of no-one personally who has suffered hearing loss. I wonder how common it is?
Because hypothetical pregnant women are rarely going to be worth risking your own child for.
Because to most parents, their child take priority over other people's. of course, many parents will think of the risk to pregnant women and unborn babies of they are planning a pregnancy, or if they have close family members who are pregnant.
But at the end of the day, each parent has to make the decision that they think is best for their own child. I don't think it's fair to guilt parents into making a parental decision they are not comfortable with because of possible pregnant women that they might never see.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.