To be worried about DD having her MMR

[snowyskies]

Donning flame-proof suit here but I think a good talking to might be just what I need!!

Eldest DD had MMR at 18 months. Afterwards she had 2 years of illness. Nothing major, ear infections, throat infections, pneumonia, kidney infections unexplained fevers. We went for lots of tests and nothing was found. While I'm not blaming the MMR I did have one dr tell me it was possibly because of it.

Second DD had a single measles jab at age 2. I discussed it with the drs and expressed my concerns about the effects the MMR had on eldest DD. they understood. She had a very bad reaction to the jab. Covered in spots, even on her eyelids. Raging temperature for a week and she screamed continually that whole time. The doctor said it was very unusual to react like that.

Third DD is now 5 and has not had MMR or measles jab. It's something I have researched at huge length. I have regularly discussed it with the drs and whilst they don't support me they understand my concerns but I need to do something about it. I am worried she could get measles so have booked her in for her MMR this week. The doctors have said she could well have a bad reaction.

AIBU to worry?

Questioning specialist advice on MMR is the equivalent to researching the aircraft certification basis. You are just not qualified to do so, and you don't have all the relevant data to hand.

Or perhaps OP is just concerned (rightly or wrongly) that her GP may be 'towing the party line' and not necessarily looking at the situation based on the individual characteristics, so she does her own reading to ensure she's fully informed?

A few doctors are only too happy to dismiss parental concerns with an 'I'm the doctor, I know best' attitude...these are the doctors you need to avoid like the plague. I've had my concerns about DD dismissed by one doctor who described her reaction to the MMR as 'slightly unfortunate' and 'no reason to be concerned about any other vaccines', it smacks of an apparent lack of honest dialogue and damages trust.

Depends on the plane and the route, generally the front.

Sometimes I wish I didn't have a need to know everything.

I have several American books on vaccines. British Medical journals. Medical text books. Both sides of the arguement. The Internet is not a good place for medical advice!!

Andro that is it exactly. Drs know what is in theory best. But they don't necessarily know that is the best for MY child. There are drs who are willing to listen and understand concerns about this kind of thing. Luckily I have spoken to a few over the years.

Andro - well they have spent many years of studying and are likely fed up with the same question. Perhaps if people who don't have anything to worry about just followed their advice, it would leave them with more time and patients to spent with people with genuine concerns.

The OP may be one of these people (with genuine concerns), but doctors are endlessly questioned by people who have self diagnosed, so I can understand why the are short on time!

OP - why would the route make a difference the the fuselage dynamics on any aircraft? You need to get a new flight dynamics book!

I'm sure drs get fed up with being questioned. I tend to find if they are questioned about actual facts rather that Internet quackery they are usually happy to discuss.

I don't have a book on that! (although theres a thought...) Just a friend who's a pilot, some routes are always more turbulent and there are different types of turbulence or so I was told. Slightly off topic now I think :)

Andro - well they have spent many years of studying and are likely fed up with the same question. Perhaps if people who don't have anything to worry about just followed their advice, it would leave them with more time and patients to spent with people with genuine concerns.

They shouldn't be dismissing ANYONE'S concerns - and being 'fed up with the same question' is no excuse for dismissing a stay in ICU as 'slightly unfortunate'! Quite honestly, if I displayed the kind of dismissive arrogance in my job that I've witnessed in a (tiny) minority of the medical profession I'd be sacked...and rightly so!

This is my point. If you have asked the question and dealt in facts and the doctor has advised you to get the jab, why don't you simply take his expert advice?

Because the dr in my case didn't advise me, he said I should make the decision. So I learned as much as I could so I could make it!

I have been deaf for 63 years [since age 6] as a direct result of measles.
My ds had a very severe reaction to measles jab 42 years ago when it was combined with something else [not MMR then] he had convulsions. My dd,because of my son's extreme reaction, was given single measles jab 36 years ago and was absolutely fine.
It's hard I know but I'd vaccinate every time.
However YANBU to be worried.

If you have asked the question and dealt in facts and the doctor has advised you to get the jab, why don't you simply take his expert advice?

Because my own parent's blanket adherence to expert medical advice landed me in ICU 4 times as a child - something which should never have happened. I will usually seek a second opinion at the very least; my dc are dependent on me and DH making the right choices for them, the least I can do is my best to ensure I make the best choices for them. Shit happens and not all reactions can be predicted, but would you take the advice of a doctor who dismissed an almost fatal reaction to a vax as 'slightly unfortunate'?

I do sympathise - you are in a very difficult position with your DCs history.

But you could research it til the cows come home. In the end you will never be able to predict what's going to happen if you do or don't give them the jab.

To quote the late great John Diamond, the risk to us or our children as we perceive it is 50:50: Either we'll get the dreaded side effects. Or we won't.

The only thing you can therefore know is that, however you look at the statistics, the risk of potential damage from measles is far higher than the risk of potential MMR side effects.

True but they may never get measles, but if they have the vaccine they will be exposed to any possible side effects. It's not a level playing field unfortunately.

Measles may not be in your area at the moment, but the Health Wonks are concerned about the Swansea outbreak spreading to the bigger cities, as this is where uptake of both MMR jabs is relatively low.

I don't know the precise figures. Even if I did I doubt I or any doctor alive alive can give you categorical reassurance that your DCs will be fine. But the fact remains that by not vaccinating when there's no outstanding health reason for them not to be vaccinated you are increasing their risk of getting measles and therefore their risk of suffering from serious side effects.

It isn't a level playing field. Based upon the example from Ireland. If someone catches it, you have about 1 in 120 chance of being dead. The odds of survival is stacked against anyone who has not had the jab!

The number of children who have died from the vaccine is many many order of magnitudes lower than that (even with the statistical bias of a previous bad reaction taken into account).

The comment earlier about "shit happening" not being good enough is sadly life - it has to be good enough, because we can't control the uncontrollable.

We have to make statistical decisions about our children every day. Your child has a significantly higher risk of being killed on the drive to the supermarket than from the MMR jab and you don't think twice about it (even for non-essential journeys). Heck, you worry about the flight, but in order to have a 1 in 1 million chance of dying, you have to fly hundreds of thousands of miles, however you only have to drive 7 miles in a car (I bet you worried much more about the flight than you did the drive to the airport that day!).

I bet you had your child in a forward facing car seat when it was 2 years old, thus giving it more than 10 times the likelihood of being killed in a crash, but you didn't know about it, so you didn't worry. Thankfully "shit" did not happen when you exposed your DC to this needless risk and hopefully "shit" won't happen with the MMR jab (which is far from a needless risk). But statistically, your DC are far better off immunised than not (subject to your doctors expert advice).

You bet wrong actually. My youngest was four until her seat was forward facing. Like I said, I research.

But what about your other two?

What about the drive to the airport?

Ok, you research, but that's no help if you can't accept statistical evidence that doesn't necessarily match your personal experience. So yes, your individual DCs have had bad reactions to MMR, and your youngest may therefore have a very slight increased risk of suffering similar reactions - but in the bigger picture they are still far less of a risk than catching and suffering measles.

The point is, you have to make a risk based decision based upon correct statistical analysis. And reading books on vaccines is just scaring.

Is is always less scary to take no action, but it isn't necessarily less dangerous (statistically).

There weren't the same guidelines for the other two. There is a significant age gap between them and Guidelines change as do safety rulings etc. Yes I was concerned about the drive to the airport, hence we have a very safe car. I know the dangers and try and protect as best I can.

I'm sure you don't mean to be offensive but I feel for some reason you are trying to criticise my parenting as a whole rather than just sticking to the arguement of me being a bad parent because my DD hasn't had the MMR yet.

Simone got their first. Well said

Books on vaccines are scary do you mean? Not at all. I read the ingredients of what I feed my children, why would I not want to know what is injected into their bodies?

I'm certainly not criticising your parenting - we all want what is best for our DCs. I'm just trying - hopefully gently - to point out that we cannot know 100% what is going to happen, but we can make an informed decision based on statistical and impartial evidence.

It is incredibly difficult when you have to take responsibility for these decisions, because god forbid if anything were to happen, because you had actively done something, you would feel - illogically - that it was your fault. It would not be your fault of course.

2nd glass of wine here - hope I'm still making some sense!

Sorry Snowy, I missed your post at 20:31.

I am definitely not trying to criticise your parenting. I am trying to demonstrate that we often focus irrationally on things incorrectly, when we think we are being rational. Not because we are stupid, or bad people, but because the risk is a scary one (which makes us consider it out of balance with the statistical likelihood of that risk occurring).

By this I mean the following.

The thought of being killed, falling out of control in and aircraft breaking up in mid air is very scary. It isn't very likely, but because it is so scary and we feel that we don't have much control, we tend to afford it the worry that might be associated with the attention that a more likely risk.

The idea of driving to the shops is orders if magnitude more dangerous, but we don't give it a second though because it is so "normal" to us.

Not vaccinating your child is far more dangerous than vaccinating. However the thought that your active decision to stick a needle into your child's arm is very scary because it could lead to your child suffering. But being scared is not (comparatively) rational. In fact, statistically, not acting is much more dangerous!

It is very easy to write this, but it is not very easy for any parent, to rationalise emotion, and I genuinely wish you the best of luck with your decision.

Well I wish your child luck as it is them who may well need it if you do not vaccinate.