Compulsory vaccines?(518 Posts)
I heard that and thought it was a very wrong idea.
I don't have children yet, but even I feel that there are too many jabs they get given.
I am not against vaccination per se, but compulsory vaccination would have me HE-ing. Just on principle. I get told what to do, I usually do the complete opposite. I believe that many are the same.
Considering that rubella and mumps vaccination are completely unnecessary for infants to make them compulsory would be a gross breach of medical ethics and anyone wanting to enforce this would be guilty of professional misconduct.
Also considering that the MMR is under investigation in the US for its established links to unacceptable levels of serious vaccine damage, it hardly seems sensible to try to enforce it on people. If the government really tries to move forward with this I hope people will campaign for the right to single vaccines. Enforcing both male and female children to have rubella vaccines is inexcusable. Mumps vaccine is purely about profit and nothing to do with public health.
When I have a moment I will look up who the madmen is who wants this to happen and see what links he has with Pharma (who just love compulsory vaccination and would be rubbing their hands in glee all the way to the bank just as they do in the US).
Just heard some official bod on tv say something along the lines that if people want to avail themselves of the free education that the state provides then it's right they shouldn't complain about state imposed compulsory vaccines before entry.
'free' state education? There's me thinking it was paid for out of taxes.
I ahve 4 children, 2 are autistic, the yongest is due his MMR this week. he is particualrly high risk for autism (ASD) and we do everything we can no matter how hard for us or tiny a chance to reduce the odds. He has a gluten and dairy free diet (he is dairy intolerant anyway), he is still breastfed, he attends sign language and socialisation groups, and no he won't have the MMR. he will have the single jab, as we realise the importance of herd immunity against measles, but the mumps is nolonger availale so reduces our options. We would give him MMR to protect against mumps at puberty, but until then it's not as huge a risk.
As aprents we have to protect our mental health as well as our son. We already have a low income (have not been able to use my degree as am a carer and my husband is recently redundant). Affecting that will simply plunge us into extreme poverty, and preventing him entering education would prevent me ever from working. Instead, at the very least make parents who already have a child with special needs exempt: I understand the ack of evidence, bt I don't beleive it tkaes much empathy to understand the sheer ear with which we fce such issues. Someone in a medical role or government job who does not have the ability to at least understand if not agree shouldn't be there, in my very honest opinion.
We already live the reality of disability- including pathetically low help levels from authorities and income levels- we have to protect our family in every way we can. A singles jab puts nobody else at risk of anything, so why the focus purely on the MMR?
custy mumps is not a big risk to boys until puberty, in answer to your question (some would debate even then), so we would jab at that stage if he has not ahd it; IMVHO catching it as a child is a much better option but the MMR is pushing it into the older population as it apparently loses efficacy then, where it is a bigger risk. Rubella is, again IMO only, essential for girls but I have none; my mum lost a baby to rubella damage, I understand the effcts, but boys dont' get pregnant.
I wouldnt say rubella and mumps are unecessay? My neighbour for example caught mumps as an adult and as a result of the overload to his system had a heart attack! And doesnt mumps have a risk of infertility for men?
Are you saying you would want to give teenagers the option to have these jabs before girls get pregnant? Dont we need them to have it to protect unborn babies?
*I do not agree with enforced vaccination* but it is very timely - I am in the middle of the measles outbreak in Wales and have my 8 month old DD at home as a baby in her room in nursery has got suspected measles (waiting for swabs). I am very worried about her as there is a high chance she will get it too and out of 150 cases in the area 38 have been hospitalised - with the risk of that rising as the child was younger. In a local nursery for example all 4 of the under twos who got it were hospitalised .
why do they give boys rubella then - can they not be carriers?
Ah but isnt the reason men need to have the rubella vaccine (and mumps for women) that we need to have a high enough level of protection against these diseases so they are not circulating in the general population? Ok so men may not need to avoid rubella but what about the women who for whatever reason cannot have the vaccine and are therefor at risk because there is more of it about?
Peppa, that is the point. When you catch mumps as a child, it is generally very mild. When you have the MMR, your immunity wears off when you hit puberty, making you vulnerable to catching mumps when it is far more dangerous to catch it. For a mild childhood disease that you could catch and have immunity to.
Peppa thats the theory and I will say now I have no problems ith DS4 receiving the individual rubella vaccination; some twunt turned up at work when I was expecting ds1 with rublla asshe didntfancy theday off. Ultimtaely though the usefulness of it does depend on numbers of girls vaccinated or crucially immune at puberty. Again, as with the mumps, I would much prefer natural immunity and the chance to immuniseat puberty.
(Peppa I also live in wales and just returned from the outbreak area. DS4 would have possibly had his single this month but some twunt at a play centre exposed him to chickenpox meaning I need to see if he gets ill from that before I can jab. )
I find it very strange that whenever MMR is discussed int he news, the only reference is to measles..
"One in four children under five has not had both MMR injections... As a result there have been measles outbreaks across the country, and experts at the Health Protection Agency now fear a measles epidemic is likely"
As if the MMr only protects against Measles. This is the one they are worried about yes? DS has had the single measles, but he will not be having the other 2. I do believe that he needs a vaccination against measles but do not think that the other 2 are necessary vaccinations.
Not everyone is thinking about autism, some are thinking about unnecessary immunisations.
When I was at school it was routine to immunise girls at puberty against rubella. Why do we not do this? (I assume cost against the cost of MMR?
Ah I see. I think that is the argument for us not having the chicken pox vaccine isnt it - that chicken pox is usually mild as a child but the vaccine wears off in adulthood when it is more serious?
I am not for one second condoning enforcing people to have the MMR. I understand the psychological issues and think any mum worries a bit about giving it sometimes. However I do think the measles vaccine should be encouraged and for little ones.
I cant see how they can enforce it without offering the option of single vaccines.
I have been on some of these threads before and aam always surprised at what people say.
About how there isn't a low take-up of measles vaccination because all the people who don't have MMR have single vaccines (escept in cases where there are medical reasons not to vaccinate).
I just don't believe that's true.
And if no-one has MMR aren't we turning our backs on years of scientific advancement? Although I know people argue that all vaccinations are a waste of time and that children should get all the diseases to build immunity etc.
Personally I don't believe that vaccination should be compulsory, but with such a low take-up i don't know what other options there are?
Tjhat'sthe thing isn't it Peppa? they've taken other options away.
In orer to finance the single jab dh and I are both wearing broken shoes- DH has a 2 inch hole in his, mine are causing probable plantar fascitis (sp). it's worth it, but why should the options force already vulnerable famillies into poverty?
Mumps vaccine is no longer being produced; a run on singles still wouldn't help with that in adolescence at all.
And I rpesume I will get a refund on all teh taxes we have paid over the years for this free education we'll be denied? no thought not
Radio 4 was reporting that US, Australia and Spain all barr unvaccinated children from school....so I assume there must be a reasonably argued case for this? Particularly in Australia, where there are some pretty forward thinking and effective public health policies.
Would be interested in getting some more doctors opinions on this as a proposed policy.....the two (very unscientific poll of friends) who I have spoken to so far are in favour of it.
I was a couple of years late for the MMR and had the rubella vaccine at 13 and measles vaccine at 14 (just realised I may not be immune to mumps). I am presuming it is money / time etc.
Peachy - I have taken DD out of nursery in the hope she did not catch it from the first child (and therfore hopefully avoiding her getting it from the children who may catch it from the first if that makes sense). My HV said that if enough children were diagnosed the health board would offer MMR for those 6 months or older but that they would also need it again at 13 months (so guessing money issue in not doing it earlier). My point is - I am wondering about getting DD a single measles vaccine now (once I have given her time to see if she develops mealses from her exposure). I am worried that even if she avoids this she will catch it as the cases are rising by the day - I live in Llanelli and work in Swansea. I know nothing about single vaccines and risk to younger ones.
Sorry for hijack!
When I say that rubella and mumps vaccines are unnecessary I'm refering to young children in which neither of these diseases is dangerous as a general rule. Making these vaccines compulsory for school entry is ridiculous as they are generally not dangerous in the populations targeted for vaccination, ie. infants. Why should a male child be denied school entry because he isn't vaccinated against a disease that is not a risk for him? 1984 here we come.
Mumps related infertility is hugely exaggerated. Orchitis does happen rarely but it usually only affects one testicle and does not render the person infertile. It does not happen to school entry age children of either sex and never happens to females. There is no need for this vaccine in young children of either sex.
Congenital Rubella Syndrome is a much more serious risk but many experts are of the opinion that vaccinating teenage girls as and when necessary is not only the most effective way to prevent CRS but is the only ethical way to proceed considering that arthritis is a known side effect of rubella vaccination.
Denying girls the chance to contract wild rubella naturally and the long term benefit to them as individuals in doing so is utter madness.
Peppa I think they are very seriosuly considering giving MMR to children your DDs age in outbreak areas. It is so hard to know what to do with the little ones. We had cases here before DD was one and it scared the pants off me. The other thing they did then was go around the schools and offer the vaccine to children who were unvaccinated, I understand they got a pretty good response with that too.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.