For thinking i shouldn't be getting constantly pestered by the local nurse and GP team to get my daughter immunises when i've repeatedly told them my answer is no?

[Lowla]

My daughter is 4. She got all her jabs as a baby, but i stopped at the MMR one. Since we missed the appointment, i've been getting loads of letters to invite us to the clinic for the MMR jab and now her school booster jab for some other virus. (Hib or something like that).

I've phoned the GP and asked them not to send any more letters out as i've chosen not to get her immunised any further for my own personal reasons, and worries over her last reactions to the jabs. And now i've got some nurse calling me asking to do a home visit next week to 'check on me and dd'. I asked 'is this about the jabs?' and she said, rather reluctantly, 'yes'.

AIBU for feeling like they should respect my decision?

Sorry for the bad grammar. Writing this in a rush as i have to run and get dd from school.

Yes but I wanted whois to admit that it wasn't just as simple as the rant would suggest - but whois is ignoring me - and I'd like to know why.

Possibly because she feels that the caveat of 'except those who can't for medical reasons' is blatantly obvious (after all everyone else took it as read) and you are therefore looking for a fight and she doesn't want to engage? That would be my guess.

So what do people think about whooping cough vaccines being offered to pregnant women? If I were pregnant again I wouldn't have it, just like I didn't have the flu jab.

Is every pregnant woman who refuses to have these vaccines endangering other people?

bissybritches you misunderstand. The HPV vaccine is only known to last for 6 years as it has only been available for 6 years.

It is likely to confer lifetime immunity like other vaccines.

Like I said, I've obviously stumbbled into a debate that has been done a gazillion times before and I'm not understanding why the caveat doesn't need to be said.

mydog you are the perfect example of why everyone who can be vaccinated, should be. Because herd immunity is required to suppress these diseases and thus protect those who cannot be vaccinated - i.e your child. Pisses me off that people don't consider that there are certain children who cannot be vaccinated but for whom these diseases would be especially serious.

Sossiges
But the point is that with MMR vaccination heading back over 95% (as it was before Wakefield the W*nker) the disease will actually die out as it cannot be passed between unvaccinated people. That is the whole point of "herd immunity". That is why people are no longer immunised against smallpox. And hopefully (a few religious bigots allowed for) within 5 years, polio will be history as well.

And if vaccinations are lifetime why are people re-tested when they're pregnant and not just have their medical notes looked at? (Genuinely curious - surely my notes would say vaccinated against abcd no need to re-test)

Duellingfanjo
The dose they are giving pregnant women is to protect them and their unborn child by making it be born immune.
Why would you not want that?

Mydogs
And if vaccinations are lifetime why are people re-tested when they're pregnant
I wasn't either time.
AND
Lots of women having babies in the UK were not born here so their notes will only go back a few years, so for them it makes complete and utter sense.

My dad is a rubella baby. He is partially blind. I used to work with a woman who had measles as a child. She has hearing impairment. Both caused by measles.

Mydog the caveat (people who have a 'proper' medical reason are not idiots, of course) usually only becomes obvious on page 10, people are jumping the gun a bit on here

Mydog as far as I am aware this is because every individual processes vaccinations differently.

Hepatitis B for example normally requires 3 vaccinations to raise acceptable immunity levels. Some patients have an immune system which will produce enough protection after 2 injections thus they don't require the third. Conversely some people will have their levels checked after 3 injections and require a 4th injection in order to reach acceptable immunity.

It would most likely to be too expensive to test everyone to check their immunity against every illness but as pregnant women have lower immunity (and these diseases pose significant risk to unborn babies), the cost of testing pregnant women and re-vaccinating if necessary is thought to off-set the costs of a child or pregnant mother contracting these diseases.

But for someone like me who was born in the UK and has complete medical notes which say I was vaccinated against everything why would I be re-tested? And I know I was, at least for rubella.

'now her school booster jab for some other virus. (Hib or something like that).'

You lose any credibility for your anti vaccination stance with that statement. 'something like that' - you don't even KNOW what you're objecting to. At least educate yourself.

Vaccines are still not compulsory are they?

Like I said, I've obviously stumbbled into a debate that has been done a gazillion times before and I'm not understanding why the caveat doesn't need to be said.

Because people in your circumstances are the very reason others, such as whois, feel so passionately about the importance of vaccination. That's what is meant by 'the greater good', ie protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

OP, I'm very pro vaccination for all the reasons others have given. Ds1 contracted whooping cough when he was 8 weeks old and it was hideous. There were several occasions when I really thought he was going to die - he would literally turn grey and seem to not breathe for what seemed like hours before letting out this awful noise and then crying his eyes out. To begin with, this happened every 15 minutes 24/7. He was in hospital for a week and took about six weeks to fully recover. I then spent months worrying that it had given him brain damage. But I do actually have some sympathy with you. In this country, as a parent, you have the right not to vaccinate your child and I don't think you should be being hounded if you've clearly communicated your choice. Febrile convulsions aren't generally dangerous but they are very frightening for parents and I can sort of see where you're coming from on this. As others have said, would it be worth discussing it with the GP to see if the chances of this happening again can be reduced?

Most parenting decisions are down to the parent, but vaccinations are a public health issue, not only do they protect your child but the wider community . Now we are seeing a rise in diseases that were previously eradicated probably becase parents ate choosing not to vaccinate

My midwife told me that the rubella vaccination can wear off, so it would be 'nice' if women who were planning on getting pregnant were aware of that.

But. If you feel so impassionned about it, why would you not at least acknowledge someone who is an example of the caveat ? I don't understand. I really don't. And I'm not looking for a fight or an arguement. I just don't understand.

Vaccines are not compulsory DF

Its a bit like the "I think all children should be able to sit at the table for 5 minutes" caveat. Obviously seriously disabled children are excluded from this expectation. Pointing out that their is a caveat is patronising.

That's weird because our surgery only sends out 3 or 4 reminder letters & then nothing more, it's very easy to ignore if you wanted. (I still got DC done, just a bit later than they suggested).

Oh and so everyone is clear. I am not anti vaccination.

Duellingfanjo and Sossiges
interestingly in the "Land of the Free" you used to have to present your vaccination certificates for smallpox and syphilis before you could get a marriage licence - back when "living in sin" was considered just that.