Radio 4's Today programme want your views on compulsory vaccinations

Cut and paste the link and you get a message saying 'you are looking for something that isn't there'.

Conspiracy theorists are going to have field day with that!

Just been listening to prog on Radio 4 about the way that journalists cover science - and how damaging it's been to the debate on vaccines that journalists feel it necessary to always give a balanced view. Damaging because for every scientist/medic willing to come forward and debate the merits of vaccines, it was always Andrew Wakefield who gave the contrary position. Gives the impression that the position is genuinely in question in the scientific/medical community, when it was only ever one person who argued the case. (I paraphrase, but that was the gist.)

Don't suppose that will be of much interest to Today though - aah, the next piece we were going to do has already been covered in much greater detail on Leading Edge. Lets talk to Garry Richardson about Murray instead....

May be you should read the following, before making vaccinations compulsory:

childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/secret-british-mmr-vaccine-files-fo rced-open-by-legal-action/#VaccineRiskOutweighs

Did wonder at whether ds's nursery would require children to have mmr.

Not at all convinced that 'we know our kids best' vis the merits of vaccines. Agree that you ought to be able to agree with the dr/nurse if there is a medical reason why not to have vaccination and have that formally recorded.

as for immunity conferred by mother on babies - i was assured that ds1 could not have chicken pox at the age of 8 weeks as I had had chicken pox as a child. He did have cp. I have not had any of the other childhood diseases so def. wouldn't be passing on any immunity to ds's.

Not clear why the arguements about migrants/immigrants who might not have had vaccines. Seems sensible to me, if you were going to require children to be vaccinated, that school/nursery entry would be dependent on vaccine certs being up to date. Wherever they were administered...

notevenamousie, of course diptheria and hib and polio are deadly, I think very few children in this country are not vaccinated against those diseases though. I already said rubella should be offered to adolescent girls to protect against congenital rubella syndrome, many of whom lose immunity by the time they are of childbearing age despite being vaccinated as babies.

With regards to immunocompromised children, as you say, a cold could kill them. Presumably you advocate childhood vaccination against chickenpox and flu too? Where do you draw the line? If MMR is risky for a small group of children, to the point of damaging them for life, is that worth doing to protect a small number of immuno-compromised children? If think there is zero risk to MMR then of course that is ethical. But more research is required to prove that.

Those people who feel vaccinations should be compulsory...
Should the sale of cigarettes and tobacco be outlawed in the UK? And smoking no longer allowed in public nor in private?

That seems like a far more sensible area to focus on.

Someone cleverer than me has probably made these points better but it is well known that you can still contract measles even after being vaccinated, and that immunisations when children are very young simply leave them vulnerable to contracting mumps (for example) when they are older and it would be more serious. I would be very unhappy to subject my two to what is effectively a gamble with their future immunity. I personally believe immunisations are driven more by finance than public health and that they can store up problems with the immune system that we are not yet aware of (for example diabetes).

I used to be pro vaccination. I was first in the queue for every new one that came out. DD1 didn't get her (single) measles because she was allergic to egg and the GP said no. When MMR came out GP again said no, so she didn't get that one. She had everything else going.

DS1, DS2 and DS3 had all their jabs.

At 9 months old, DS1 started losing weight. He wasn't obviously ill but wasn't right. Months and months of doctors appointments and hospital appointments didn't get to the bottom of it. Once he started to walk he was very clumsy and I can clearly remember my mum saying "there's something wrong with that baby". He was dx with dyspraxia at 5 as an aside, with the consultant saying there was something else but he'd no idea what. Looking back he went downhill after his third DPT jab (in the days when they used mercury).

DS2 has ADHD and associated gut problems. He caught mumps after having the MMR Non vaccinated DD1 didn't catch it. DS3 caught rubella at 11 months old. DD1 didn't get that either.

When DD2 came along we decided, with the full support of my very pro vax mother not to give her the MMR. She has had the single measles and will have the rubella when she is 12.

Any forced vaccination schedule would need a signed guarantee that damages would be paid and care given for life as a result of any problems. I can't see that being forthcoming.

It's not just MMR, poface, diphtheria, polio, tetanus and haemophilus influenzae claim thousands of lives in countries who cannot afford to vaccinate. Congenital varicalle syndrome, and the much worse counterpart congenital rubella, can both be lethal. Immunocompromised individuals can die from a cold, let alone any of these, which is why we need herd immunity. We need to do something about it.

I think if the government want the burgeoning home education movement to grow even faster and bigger than it is currently, introducing compulsory vaccination is an excellent way of doing that.

I agree with what lulu said.

Threatening, bullying tactics, a trusted government does not make.

I would stand up and applaud a decision to introduce some transparency into vaccination in this country.

As a starting point I would like them to start publishing statistics that include children who have had single jabs because we're starting this furore with soundbites based on misleading statistics. I would also like each radio and televesion progamme and newspaper article to acknowledge a lack of proper research and stop with the 'Wakefield's research was discredited'. A little honesty please.

They won't bring in compulsory vaccinations but in the unlikely event that they did, I'd be swimming the channel in my efforts to get away.

And if I don't get very far and am sent back, I'll have a percentage of my taxes back seeing as dd's education will be denied to her.

[mouthlikecatsbum]

'these are deathly diseases'
Measles is potentially deadly. Mumps and rubella are not. Rubella of course is potentially seriously harmful to the fetus which is why adolescent girls should receive a booster.

Measles being potentially so serious does not mean however that research into vaccine safety should be curtailed.

I disagree with that being the view of the BMA as a whole.

It's a difficult one, isn't it. In my professional life I have seen a little boy die from measles encephalitis which colours my views. Somehow we have to get the UK population to have herd immunity. These are deathly diseases. But I am not completely sure that compulsory immunisations are the way to go about it. I wish I knew what the answer is, though.

'the concept of compassion within the BMA and the medical fraternity'

Given the general attitude of the BMA that mothers are all pretty stupid and children must be protected from them I think the concept of compassion is indeed, er, slightly lost.

Helenmumsnet

If you are conveying my feelings could you please stand with one hand on one hip and wag your finger with the other. You will need to hurumph and roll your eyes a lot. You might cry a little but I tend to only do that in private when the fuckwits people shrugging their shoulders at what happened to my boy gets too much. You, I am sure, will not give in to such wasteful emotions.
The good news is that once you are done you can have a big drink.

Thank you in advance

i think they should be compulsory. there are dangers i know this but the dangers for the rest of the population for the un vaccinated are much bigger. therefore given you dont know in advance whether your child will be the small percentage of those where problems occur i dont see why people shouldnt have to have them done. but that will never happen in the UK i am sure.

My son regressed after his MMR and no one - no one - has been able to give an explaination as to what happened to him or why he also suddenly developed gut problems and food intolerances.

Whether people believe me to me barmy or misguided, having had one child affected so severely is there seriously anyone out there who believes that it is reasonable for me to be forced to vaccinate my NT DD.

Or , having been given no compensation and little support, am I now to be excluded from services in an attempt to blackmail and bully me.

I just about cope with Liam Donalson and various government spokesmen being trotted out to use language which calls me stupid and then blames me for every bout of measles. But when they choose to refuse single jabs, refuse to investigate my sons regression and then try this kind of blackmail, I start to loose any faith in the concept of compassion within the BMA and the medical fraternity.

if only the govt were more honest about the situation, and instead of demonizing Wakefield, allowed more research into the issue [no scientist wants to broach it in the UK at present after what happened to Wakefield]. Even those who propose MMR may be risky for a small number of children agree it is safe for the majority. But what a way to let down a small number of children who may be susceptible, by forcing all children to be immunized to protect public health, knowing that it is impossible at present to prove that MMR has been the causative agent in damaging certain children. The government know that culpability is impossible to prove, which is why they are so carefree in their approach to the subject.

Not compulsory, no.

I would be dead against taking away the choice. More info is what we need, in order to make an informed decision, not coercion.

ROFL re only those who don't understand science being wary of MMR. I trust you have never been in a conversation with a certain biochemist on MN who clearly knows her stuff...

So much for Tony Blair's much vaunted Third Way and Parental Choice. It's "Do what we say" all the way.

I guess Frank Zappa was right: whoever you vote for the Government gets in.

As the Cochrane report [the govt's own inqiry into MMR safety] concluded research into MMR safety, both for and against, was 'woefully inadequate' it seems a very unethical and bullying tactic to force children to be immunized with MMR before they can go to school. And as no doctor on the face of the UK will risk his career by officially confirming a child should not have the MMR on medical grounds, it seems that all children would really mean all children, again, unethical. If children can only be admitted to school if they have had MMR or singles, then lets hope Merck re start production of the mumps vaccine.

Of course as vaccination does not necessarily mean life long immunity, if this were to be enforced one would have to be routinely testing all adults that have any access to children to ensure their immunity status too. But I'm sure that hypocrisy won't stand in their way.

I am a passionate advocate of vaccination. But we live in what is supposed to be a free country and I would be appalled at this proposal.

I am also pro-vaccination, but I do not agree with making it compulsory. Forcing people to have it doen will get even more people's backs up.
Tbh, I think the government should have allowed people the option of singles, despite the shortcomings. I am confident that MMR is safe and I do roll my eyes (to myself) when I hear a friend say she hasn't had her child immunised, but any kind of action which can be seen as coersive does the immunisation cause no favours and makes it look to some that there is something to hide.