AIBU to think non vaccination is child abuse

[alittlevoice]

There was this discussion in another thread and i thought i would make a new thread so it doesn't over taken someone elses

To me not vaccinating your child is akin to child abuse because you are putting them at undue risk of disease which is preventable due to scare mongering or from quack doctors that have long been struck off the medical register and shunned from the medical community

I hate the assumption that because there has been no reported cases it means you shouldn't vaccinate your children it's because children have been vaccinated regularly that there has not been a epidemic

leading doctors (not the quacks) have been worried for some time about the rise of mumps because of the scare mongering and children not getting vaccinated and get seriously Ill and have to be saved by modern medicine (which quack parents are always keen to take up on with there anti vaccination stance)

rubella has a incubation period as many other diseases so if your child has it and you dont know and child is near a pregnant woman and she loses her child due to non immunisation I don't understand how as a parent you'd do that to another person

So the long and short of it is why are some parents touched in the head and think they have the right for there child to possibly kill unborn children and infect younger babies too young to have the choice (and for those saying this is far fetched its as plausible of something going wrong from immunisations)

Buzz I've had all three mmr diseases as a child as a result I have lifelong immunity which vaccination does not provide.

You know that the common cold can have fatal complications don't you? Do you know how a child s immune system develops? Where do you think that vaccinating should stop? Clearly not at chicken pox.

Bully for you. I nearly died of whooping cough and had chicken pox three times. None of that changes anything in my mind.

Stata, no it would not mean that at all! There weren't even that many deaths before the vaccine was introduced- check the hpa figures. There were around 100 deaths a year in the 60s before the vaccine came along but this had reduced from several hundred a year after antibiotics became more widely used in 1940s and even more so than from the start of the century when it was killing thousands and even 10s of thousands a year - all that BEFORE THE VACCINE.

Of course vaccine damage exists and is awful but it is not in nearly the numbers you would believe if you read anecdotes on the internet of people who think their kids have been vaccine damaged. You can have a reaction to any medication - but the benefits outweigh the risks for most people.

sopha - do you have evidence that mercury into the bloodstream is more toxic than that ingested I assume you do or your comment about injecting tuna is irrelevant.
Lifelong immunity from measles, mumps and rubella is great if you survive and aren't left deaf or blind.

Buttonmooncup, you speak of scaremongering. I reject that idea. I don't honestly care what you have had injected into your children, I merely defend my right to make decisions on this matter about mine without intervention from the state or wild, nonesensical accusations from strangers with apparently no more medical training than I. Hands up, my degree wasn't in medicine.

A very good friend is a degree-qualified metallurgist though and he shares my view, interestingly.

My children are older than those of many on here and the chemical compnents/levels have changed but my decision hasn't. Oh, and regarding mercury in a tin of tuna, I wouldn't be able to compare the effects. I'm a vegan and former vegetarian with children who are lifelong vegetarians. None of us have eaten a piece of tuna in our lives. :o

Yes, I get that fear is a crucial factor here, but still don't understand the need to make sweeping assumptions and judgments. If someone makes a different decision to mine, that's fine - their child, their family, their history, their choice. Why do people get so angry about what other people do? Only logical reason I can see is herd immunity ? if you are unfortunate enough to have a child who cannot be vaccinated and wish everyone who can ruddy does it to protect yours. But it doesn't seem to be transplant patients and people undergoing treatment for cancer and their families who are angry at parents who don't vaccinate.

FWIW I was working with expert, independent medical reviewers when the MMR scandal was at its height. I was lucky enough to have access to research and experts who could interpret it. I made a choice for ds based on that information. Doesn't mean I get angry with people who made a different choice. Theirs is equally valid.

3 good friends of mine are degree qualified doctors - including a senior consultant peadiatrician - they all vaccinated - do I win?

honestly I don't think it's child abuse but I do think it's misguided

I don't see what the problem is. My children are vaccinated so if a non vaccinated child gets mumps/measles and brings it to school mine won't get it.

Its all about personal choice, which also means are responsible for the outcomes your choices. Opting out doesn't mean you opt out of any responsibility.

Fr'instance, if you decide against mainstream advice not to vaccinate your child and they contract measles and react badly to it, should the state pay for treatment or should you pay as you made that choice ?

YABU!!

Of course the NHS should treat the child, Hymie, a. because it would be monstrous to victimise a child for the decisions of its parents and b. because we have this thing called free, universal healthcare in this country where people are treated according to need. Not according to whether they have lived a life that other people judge as 'good'.

Hymie
That's fine. And then perhaps people who have eaten too much, or drunk more than recommended can have to pay too. Or those who drive over the speed limit, or cross the road without looking. Or absail for a charity event, or ski, or horse ride, or play rugby or .... Gosh. This could save the country a fortune.

"Not according to whether they have lived a life that other people judge as 'good'."

WTF !!.....don't put words into my mouth...all i was asking was if people make a choice that is against state advice and it goes tits up should the state still foot the bill. Sod all about if they've lived a good life, it was about being responsible and accountable for your actions/choices.

Pagtwatch, you are insured for those charity events by the organisers, not the state. As for the other examples...why not ?...I'm not suggesting you are not treated, I'm suggesting you pay for it...like student loans.

So everyone who doesn't eat their 5 a day. Everyone who drinks more than the recommended number of units.Every one who has ever smoked. Everyone who plays a contact sport. Every mother/ father who let's her child play a contact sport in the park..
If you ask people to pay for every life choice outside recommended advice then you might as well just fess up and say you don't believe in a free health service.

If everyone is going to pay for every single life choice that sits outside what the state approves of then fine. But picking on one choice is a judgement.

Given that we had to pay for private healthcare for my cancer-striken, dying Nanny because the NHS were unable to provide her with a bed in the hospital that she was rushed to, Hymie, I'm aware of the NHS's failings and I'm fully prepared to pay for medical treatment should my children or I get measles and should it prove serious and require medical intervention.

The chances of me needing to do so however are remarkably rare, are they not?

Pagwatch, I see your contact sport and I raise you anyone who gets bitten by their pet rat and needs ABs, as I once did, and anyone who formula feeds. :o

Ahh...its harpy time.....what a shock !

Choosing not to vaccinate your kids has sod all to do with contact sports, keeping pets and all the other trivial crap being thrown as a smokescreen.

Its about being responsible and accountable for a choice you are making on anothers behalf.

Its a bit like headlice...how many of you are sick to the back teeth of raking them out of your kids hair because some parent at your kids schools doesn't bother.

But if your kid is vaccinated, then they won't catch it, right? So it's not the same as nits.

AAAAGH! I'm being sucked in! And I don't even give a shit!!!

We coudlnt; pay for aspirin for a bloody headache at the moment from exactly teh same reasons we didn't MMR.
the people least likely IMO to vaccinate- those with a chdilalready diagnosed- are statistically the same ones likely to end up in poverty.

In fact there's a hwole thing tehre about alternatives no? The alternatives that ARE available are costly and thsoe who MIGHT benefit most understandably are likely to be the ones who find it ahrdest to cover the charges.

As it ahppens, ds WILL NOT give any child emasles as he ahs had the separate jab. Does the GP or school or anyone else know that? nope. It's not recorded anywhere. So what, would DS be denied treatment for measles on the basis it's not recorded rather than his actual immune status?

If ds4 reaches puberty having not encountred wild mumps then I will consider MMR; i'd like to give him separate mumps jab but obviously that decision ahs been taken out of my hands. As ds4 is showing signs of being my third affected child it will be far better for me I beleive to come to terms knwoing I did everything In could than otherwise.

It's NOT like headlice.

I know of no health status or genetic history that could make a prent even feel that headlice treatment poses a risk to their own child.

And also before I go:
someone said misguided; I can live with that.

Absuive? that's aterrible thing to say. I work in a related field, I know what abuse really is. oit's not aprents making difficult decisions they thin is best for their own child.

Has this kicked off yet [grin}?

"a bit like"

Sheeesh..........

"Ahh...its harpy time... Its about being responsible and accountable for a choice you are making on anothers behalf."

I've already held my hands up to mine being an entirely selfish decision, made for the beneift of my children (and in my case, as an unvaccinated adult for my own benefit) as they, not anyone else, are my priority. I'm accountable only to my own children and myself. I don't answer to anyone else.

I've also said that I'm prepared to live with the consequences should my decision cause any to my children or I. (And it isn't, btw, a decision "not to bother").

So, where the harpy thing comes in goodness knows.

I repeat - I (and probably the majority of the non vaccinators, I'd imagine) don't give a stuff what you allow to be pumped into your children's bodies or into your own. I just don't intend or desire to have anything pumped into ours.

I can't put it any more clearly, can I?