Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
why do parents refuse their baby / childs vaccines?(346 Posts)
in the uk we are so lucky to have an nhs---- doctors ,nurses ,treatments and vaccines we should be so grateful.in third world countries babies /children die of terrible diseases and also our relatives eg great great great grandmas would have done anything to have their children vaccinated IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE DREAM TO HAVE AN NHS AND VACCINES, instead they had to witness their child suffer i dread to think what they went through.
what country you are born in is luck of the drawer.
we should be grateful for medical care and vaccines available to us and have our baby/ child vaccinated.
i cannot believe some parents are so selfish and ruthless putting others at risk and starting an epidemic what happened in history and other third world countries .when the nhs is here to help and protect us now.x
ps think about babies 0 day old to 15 months who are too young to be covered /vaccinated.10 babies have died recently from whooping cough.also there has been 2 well known footballers had meningitis recently so there is reported cases,surely this needs nipping in the bud .
why are parents still refusing to vaccinate?
Sorry seeker your post just now seems to be treating the whole thing as a joke. I shold have done what I said I was going to and buggered off a loooooong time ago.
JotheHot: I said PigletJohn was hostile not because she said someone was wrong, you'll note Elaine said that! but for being fakely naive and sarcastic. I thought you were hostile when you used the terms droning from soapbox etc. It's got nothing to do with disagreeing with people, it's the way that it's done, which as I say may give satisfaction to a bad temper or some frustration, but is likely to be very countrproductive if you are trying to change people's minds. I acceptyou might not want to change peoples minds though and just want to vent.
Just like that person who was in a town where the pavements and offices were littered with people suffering from Whooping Cough, despite all having been vaccinated.
I know a child who was in a car crash and was injured while in a car seat. So I now don't put my children in car seats because they are obviously safer not in them.
It's my opinion that child-seats in cars are dangerous and may lead to haemmerrhoids. Is it right that I should be compelled by law to use them?
Surely I have the right to make my own decisions.
What right does the pro-car-seat lobby have to attack me?
I have a friend who genuinely believed that because her children were unvaccinated, their systems would be so strong they wouldn't get head lice. Until they did.
Sometimes people are just plain wrong.
Some people think the small risk associated with vaccinating is greater than the diseases themselves. The science collated to date refutes this position, except for a tiny minority.
A pro-vaxer who challenges an anti is at fault because they are being 'hostile'. A pro-vaxer who says an anti is wrong, is also apparently at fault because they didn't first make themselves available to help pick up the pieces in the event that the vaccination goes badly. Are we really condemned to stand silently by as people take unnecessary risks, principally with their own children, but also to a lesser extent with the children of other people? Does this only apply to decisions about vaccinations, or does it extend to all medical decisions, or indeed all decisions? Is being polite, patient and compassionate all that matters?
If we get another scary disease outbreak, there will be people in queues a mile long outside doctor's surgeries begging for vaccination. It used to happen with Polio outbreaks.
Unvaccinated children will not be allowed into schools or nurseries.
But Brycie, there's the risk itself - the probability of outcome x happening. And then there's the perception. With all due respect to your friends, there's no evidence that the risk of vaccinating, with some rare exceptions, is greater than the risk of the disease. Their perceptions don't change the underlying probability.
I appreciate that forcing people to vaccinate when they perceive or believe the risk to be higher is not the way to go. The beliefs are genuine even if the science is flawed.
But equally I don't think that people then have the right to deny other children THEIR right to go to school without being put at additional risk. We're either a society or we're not. The simple fact is that unvaccinated children are much more likely to transmit disease to others than vaccinated children.
So, my view is not forcible or mandatory vaccination, no - but sanctions to prevent unvaccinated children posing an additional risk to others, eg through attending pre-schools or state schools. Yes, I do agree with that.
I also appreciate that these are your friends and not you!!
There's no point telling me What I'm saying there are people who have different ideas of risks on the issue and unless we are going to be there to take the risk alongside them and pick up the pieces if it goes wrong, then we can't tell them what to do. Them not just being the people I know of course, I mean people who think along these lines.
it is incontrovertible that you are an higher risk of serious illness, permanent disability qnd death if you are exposed to polio,TB and diphtheria than you are from being vaccinated against them. Incontrovertible. And exposing your child to those illnesses is grossly irresponsible.
Hello seeker, there was a conversation earlier between Elaine and I about aligning people's definition of risk.
But they are not putting their children first- they are taking ridiculous risks with them.
And they may not be putting my children at risk, but they could be putting the unborn child of woman sitting next to them on the bus at risk, or the immune compromised child in their class, or the newborn baby they cuddle.
It's really not as simple as "you do your thing, I'll do mine". It really isn't.
Don't think anyone can tell anyone to take a risk with their children unless they're ready to share the consequences. I must say this, you were the person who said earlier : blaming reactions on vaccines is the same as blaming acne on clouds. Because of that, I wouldn't take your opinion very seriously after that. I'm not playing games, I just wanted to give my opinion. In the conversation I have been pushed towards sympathising more strongly with my friends! Their children are not a danger to yours (or mine). I put my children first, so did you, so can they.
I am definitely in the "vaccinate or don't get a free pre school or school place" camp.... unless medically excused.
Thanks for the conversation Elaine, I don't know how long I can carry it on because I'm reaching the limits of my knowledge here and feeling a bit "under attack". Also I think I used rather too many exclamation marks at one point which makes me look rather shouty, which I'm actually not.
I'm sure they did believe it. I don't doubt for a second the sincerity of those who don't vaccinate their children. I just think they're wrong
Thanks anyway Elaine I think you're taking the phrase "it doesn't matter" in a different way than I meant it. They haven't used it to me! I personally said they had to consider whether they were depending on OTHER PEOPLE taking the risk instead of them. The response was that they didn't expect anyone too and since they didn't think vaccines worked very well anyway (!) they had no idea who was immune or not, therefore they operated as if anyone could be a carrier of any disease. Normally you would think that means they would want to protect themselves from the highest risk, of course, but they firmly believed (still do) that they were protecting their children from risk in a different way. I won't say which countries they went to, I don't want to out myself, but they were places which do have the diseases which PigletJohn was talking about.
Sorry Brycie. Don't know much about that at all. I'm sure there'll be others who are more informed.
I do agree with Piglet though about your friends. If they said that it doesn't matter to them what other people do or where they go, then there's no way that they can make an accurate risk assessment since they don't know what the risk of the alternative is.
It would be like me vaccinating my children against Japanese encephalitis and yellow fever even though we're living somewhere where these diseases are not prevalent just because I've decided that vaccines are 'good'. Similarly, people have decided vaccines are 'bad' and this skews their perception of risk to the point that almost any risk for whatever bad outcome is deemed greater if you vaccinate, despite what the evidence shows. Especially true of people who refuse ALL vaccines, no matter what.
To be honest I think it is quite hostile to ask questions like "if they are very ill will they accept that with equanimity" and that quite sarcastic or faux naive "i'm puzzled", it feels like game playing to me and I don't really like that, I like the conversation but I don't care for that. I'm sorry I've only read the first line of your last post accordingly!
I don't think I 'm being hostile. I have a simple and direct mind. To me, the purpose of vaccination is to prevent and limit infection, disease, suffering and death. All good things, IMO. If the results of catching the disease are likely to be worse than the results of having the vaccination, I'm in favour of it.
As for risk assessment, I am very familiar with it. If I decide to go over Niagra Falls in a barrel, instead of walking down the footpath beside it, well-documented past experience tells me that I am much less likely to be drowned or smashed to a pulp going down the footpath. If I choose the barrel, and survive, that does not mean that I was "right" and that the barrel option was safe. I just means that (that time) I was lucky.
I don't mind people who go into the barrel with their eyes open, and deciding that the chance of a few seconds excitement, and the glamour and fame that may follow, is in their opinion worth more than the risk of being fished out of the water in several pieces downstream. However I do object to people who claim fallaciously that the footpath is more dangerous, because somebody fell off the wall into the water when posing for a photo, or that the barrel is safe, because somebody survived it in 1888.
I didn't respond to your point Elaine. Yes, I agree. I don't know how many people are actually in favour of forced vaccination in the UK.
Why are you being hostile to me Pigletjohn, I don't like it. I feel pushed into feeling like it's bad to defend my friends when I have had quite the opposite kind of conversation with them. But I don't mind defending them, what they did is totally up to them. How do you know they were lucky, you don't know them or their children, where they went, how they planned their trip or anything. The fact is they made an assessment for their children and tehy were right, for their children. Why do you even mind that they did that, what difference does it make to you.
Elaine, PigletJohn has raised whooping cough but I would like to ask you something about that instead as you seem to be in the know. Is there a vaccine for the other kind of whooping cough that people are talking about ie not the one they already vaccinate for. Why are they not offering this vaccine? Do they know how many cases are which kind?
To my simple mind, the purpose of a vaccination is to reduce the rate of infection, illness and death resulting from a disease
Nobody on here has tried to dispute the figures which to my eye show that the pertussis vaccination (among many others) achieved that.
Does anybody dispute that, if you catch the disease, you are likely to be a lot more ill than you are likely to be from having the vaccination? That isn't a "sacrificing yourself for others" reason for being vaxxed, it's a self-interest point.
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.