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)

YABVU! Of course it's not child abuse.

These are usually parents who've made an (albeit ill-informed and not evidence-based) decision but one which has their own children's best interest at heart. The rise in anti-vax ties in nicely with the rise in medical denialism (although Valhala's position, while I don't agree with it, is at least logically coherent). It's most certainly not abuse and brining in such emotive language undermines the whole debate.

And what about those children who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated? If you work in a hospital then presumably you are aware that these children exist?

YABU. My daughter collapsed and became seriously ill after her 8 week vaccinations. Turns out she can't tolerate Pediacel. Because of the way the NHS is structured though that's all they can give her, but they've offered to have her in hospital for it so they can resuscitate her each time mynotfinkso.

So she'll have the preschool ones instead, different form of vaccine. In hospital just in case, but it's unlikely she'll react the same.

Some of us have bloody good reasons for not vaccinating.

I wonder who all these people are that don't vaccinate for no good reason.

I've only met- on here and in rl -people who have educated povs on vaccination. Well those that don't vaccinate anyway. All the screeching and hyperbole comes from the other side while a few MNers patiently and logically try to discuss the facts. I don't know anybody who has done it lightly.

I assume those that have availed themselves of singles still aren't counted in the official data? Jolly ho, means we can cast them all as reckless numpties with greater ease.

The best result for any individual child is that everyone ELSE is vaccinated (herd immunity) but that that individal child is not, since all vaccines carry some risk.

Makes rather a paradox of the OP's question

Oi oi Statalover! I just wanna make something clear... I'm in no way an advocate of medical denialism! :o

This pro epidural if requested, pro a woman's right to choose and all that jazz woman whose DD2 was born by ELCS with my full begging backing is very much in favour of medical advances and wouldn't be here without them.

Despite my veganism, despite that my unvaccinated children are lifelong vegetarians and that I'm an animal rights supporter please don't get the wrong idea, I'm the most un-woo person imaginable and the nearest I get to aromatherapy and homeopathy is Radox in me bath! :o

Beside the point but I'm horrified the NHS can't give an alternative form of immunisation, it means my daughter has to go without. When DS1 reacted badly to the pertussis element of his jab 7 years ago they just gave him different vaccines, they won't do that today.

That hasn't been my experience showofhands.

Those 'educated povs' are not based on robust and scientific evidence. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. And I haven't seen anyone (in rl or even on MN so far) with scientific training - medical or otherwise - who is anti-vax.

Those who use singles instead of MMR are generally mistaken and have wasted their money as well as leaving their children exposed for longer to preventable diseases. Not ONE country in the world recommends single jabs.

Yours is a logical argument Val and I don't think it's based on medical denialism. I don't agree with it but at least it's logically coherent and recognises that in a society where the majority of children are vaccinated you are far less likely to be exposed to the disease you are being vaccinated against. I would suggest though that you don't advocate too far and wide - if too many people follow you , then you've undermined your whole case.

Thank you for your um colourfull choice of words describing me

I have asked this question to some social service workers and they have agreed with me (i am far more rational at a better time of the day) that it could in some light fall under the neglect criteria and emotional abuse critera and under the every child matters critera under being healthy

I am not saying it should be law i think people who dont immunise it effects other children and put children who they interact with at risk CHILDREN WHO ARE TOO YOUNG TO BE IMMUNISED i will say it again it is about children too young to be immunised and pregnant women who are at risk

Chicken pox: incubation period is up to 21 days where it is highly contagious and you have nearly no syptoms so any time you have been around a pregnant woman you have put them at risk for your beliefs and they could end up losing a child for your beliefs how is that fair?

Swine Flu: incubation period is up to 4 days generally but can be longer and all that time you are putting children and babies too young to have the injection at risk

Mumps: incubation period is usually 18-19 days but can be up to 25 days in some cases and yes if you do not vaccinate as children they grow up and hit puberty and could contract mumps and then have a possiability of being sterile

Polio: incubation period is usally 18-20 days but can be up to 30 and yes it is mild if you catch it when you are younger HOWEVER you could one of the unlucky ones who in 40% of children with polio go on to post polio symdrome which can cause paralysis

Tetanus: incubation period 8 days can be up to 21 days and the quicker the incubation period the more serious the case tetanus has been FATAL in 10% of reported cases of tetanus

so again this is about THE TOO YOUNG TO BE IMMUNISED AND THE PREGNANT so unless you plan to keep your non immunised children away from these groups of children your children will always pose a risk to them and how is that fair and something you could live with if because of your choice someone else developed complications and died?

So call me what you like i have a conscious and i have seen complications from a couple of these illness and would never want to be the one responsable for causing any illness

What a twat you are OP, I read your comments last night and rolled my eyes.
If you blindly follow medical advice from the NHS without questioning any of it including the motives then you are touched in the head because I can tell you for a fact not all of it is for your own good, not by a long chalk.

Well I have met anti-vax people who are fucking idiots. They have tended to be in favour of homeopathy as well (indisputable evidence of utter stupidity).
I do agree that calling it abuse not to vaccinate is overdoing it. I prefer (unless contraindicated) 'stupid irresponsible gullible fuckwittery'.
Now I do think ear piercing in under 5s is abuse.

Glitterknickaz - Same here with the pertussis element. Ds1 was able to have the others separately but this option was withdrawn only a few weeks after that.

My other three children have been fully immunised but not ds1.

Yes. Thanks fir that,

Still quite mind bogglingly stupid.

Op.......where do you stand on the cervical cancer vacc for young girls?

But alittlevoice you're mixing up two different factors I think:

One is the danger to the child itself. While I wholeheartedly support vax and think it's usually a safe and effective way of preventing certain diseases, the risk of contracting those disease is often low in countries with high vax levels. Also, in developed countries most complication can be treated. You need to put the risk to the individual child in perspective, it's small and probably no more dangerous than something like not being restrained in a car seat (just a guesstimate!).

The other is the danger to others who can't be immunised. But how do you force parents to immunise their own children for the benefit of others if the parent feels (rigthly or wrongly) that it is harmful to their own child?

Either way, it's certainly not child abuse.

I think the reason you're getting flamed is because you're coming across a bit smug and superior.

"I would suggest though that you don't advocate too far and wide - if too many people follow you , then you've undermined your whole case."

Oh gawd yes, a bit like Jehovahs Witnesses and the amount of room in heaven... :o

:o

Seriously, I only mention it when I come across ridiculous comments like the OP's. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else to or not to vaccinate, which I believe is entirely a personal decision. Not my place to tell others that IMHO this vax is a potentially damaging thing to do unless they start telling me that I'm a child abuser!

Stata, you clearly have never encountered one of our best loved non vaccinators on here. Sadly I don't think she posts anymore or does rarely but her threads are still here. Not only is she scientifically educated, this is her area of interest.

Point me in the direction of one MNer who doesn't have valid reasons for not vaccinating. I've never met her and I've been here for years.

YADNBU. Going against conventional medical advice in ANY other circumstance would be a child protection issue - why not vaccines?

Alittlevoice - Have you met the families of those children who have ended up in hospital because they were immunised? The ones who are standing back watching doctors trying to resuscitate their babies because they turned grey and stopped breathing after being immunised. I'm guessing not.

But of course, if a social worker says something then it must be true...

Alittlevoice
I don't disagree with you on some points. I do think that those with non-vaccinated children might put others at risk. But they are not abusing their children or anyone elses.

Every non-vaxer I have encountered has spent a long time researching what is best for their child.

And don't forget - vaccinations are not fool proof. A baby or pregnant woman could still catch chicken pox from a child who was vaccinated. The 2x vax for chicken pox is much more effective than the single vax.