To be annoyed with family member about childhood jabs

[footflapper]

I would like a certain family member to make an informed choice about her Dd's jabs. So i'll be showing her this thread. She's absolutely refusing to let her 12 mo have any vaccinations due to the scare from many years ago about the now disproved link to autism. So I'm gonna try and make sure she has all the facts..

If someone is refusing to let their child have any vaccinations at all then she is putting her child, and every other child that hers comes into contact with, at risk of serious illness. It sounds like the OP wants to make sure that her friend is aware of the risks in order to make an informed choice as she clearly believes that friend has not researched the risks or benefits of either course of action. I don't think OP deserves to be told that her friend's ignorance is none of her business when she's trying to help and is concerned.

OP - I made the choice to give my eldest ds the MMR at the height of the Wakefield report, when arguments for and against were raging strongly. I researched all options and decided that a possible risk of autism outweighed a definite probability of measles or mumps. I know plenty of other people who made the decision not to vaccinate, but both choices were made after we researched them extensively.

You cannot make such a choice if you haven't read up, and if you can't be bothered reading up then follow health professionals' advice.

While it's legal to do/not to do something with one's child no-one but the parent has a right to stick their nose in unless they are:

A. Caring for that child full time, day and night, and paying his bills.

B. Willing and able to continue that care should the child suffers in any way as a result of the thing which the nosy one wants to enforce upon the child.

I presume that the OP is not the child's carer, does not pay her bills, is not the one who is there mopping up sick or bathing bloodied knees and will not be the one pushing the child's wheelchair should tragedy occur for whatever reason. Until she is, she should butt out.

I went against my DHs views to get our children vaccinated. He's glad now.

Why is there such an outbreak in Wales now? Because people read Wakefield's research and got scared.

That research has now been discredited. But children are becoming seriously I'll because their parents were misinformed all those years ago. I accept that it's your child, your choice. But am within my rights, as is the OP, to get pissed off with other people who refuse to get their dc's vaccinated because they have made a frankly uninformed choice,or mis- informed choice, therefore put mine and lots of other children at risk.

You are within your rights to be pissed off.

What's wrong is shoving your opinions down someone else's throat.

That other mother will have been in touch with HV and GP and they're pretty hot on vaccinating and will have made sure she understands the risks.

And if that mother isn't listening to her GP or other HCP what in the name of fuck makes you think they'll listen to you?

Assuming there's not a good reason not to vaccinate in each particular case. And assuming that the parents haven't researched for themselves and decided not to go ahead.

I think it is great you want her to make an informed choice - there is so much Mis-information out there..... However not sure a mumsnet thread is a place you will find it.

And just a small point not really

Why is it all about the mother? What about the father or isn't he thick as mince?

ivehadaverybadday so have I.

Also, ivehadaverybadday, no-one's saying that you're not within your rights to get peed off with other parents' decisions. I get peed off with other parents' decisions myself at least once a week.

But, there's a massive difference between being peed off and trying to force your opinions down others' throats. Your opinion might pee me off - I'll pop round tomorrow at 9am and show you a thread from strangers on the internet because I don't think you've researched your options properly.

See? Not nice, is it?

1. Sitting next to me is my DP. he has minimal hearing and badly damaged eyesight - due to measles

1. A good friend has half of one lung left. She can never fly and has to spend 10 day in hospital every 2 months to recieve high doses of antibiotics and will do for the rest of her life - due to whooping cough

1. A neighbour walks with a terrible limp and has recently fallen down stairs, due in large part to the limp, breaking 4 ribs and detaching her lung - due to polio in her hip as a child.

None of these people will ever get any better and none are elderly. Vacienes could have prevented all of this.

No I don't think a MN thread Is the right place to do it either. But there is a reason it's such a highly charged topic, because lives are at risk, it really is that black and white.

Seabright, typing this message is an adult woman. She has had absolutely no vaccinations. She has had measles. She has had no other illness for which people are routinely offered vaccination in the UK. She has suffered no ill effects from having had measles. Her mother is unvaccinated. Her mother has never had any of the illnesses which you would be vaccinated against in the UK. Her children are unvaccinated. Her children have never had any of the diseases for which you would be routinely vaccinated in the UK.

But nonetheless the plural of 'parental choice' is not 'anecdote' so we could be here all night comparing life stories and it would mean nothing.

So, she wasn't that (ahem) academic at school, but it's still nothing to do with you.

People of lower intelligence are allowed to have children, and while I appreciate that can have an effect on the rest of society, we do not live in a society that forbids people to have children based on their intelligence. If we did, there would be plenty of other choices we could attack before we worry about vaccination choices.

My children are all vaccinated, as am I.

I will still defend the right of another parent not to have a horrible judgey thread posted about them on here and have someone else's opinions shoved down their throat.

My children are of an age where the issue was a real concern-nothing had been disproved. After a lot of soul searching we made the decision for both children to have the initial injection but not the booster.
At the ages of 15 and 11, they're getting the boosters tomorrow.

Both of my children have all their vaccinations, I have all of mine except for rubella - I've had the vaccine half a dozen times and it just won't stick. That was my choice and I'd never force that choice onto any other parent.

Maybe she thinks it's the people who do vaccinate that are the ones who are misinformed and taking unnecessary risks. It works both ways, how would you feel if someone you knew - a relative - started lecturing you on why you shouldn't vaccinate and started telling you why vaccinating is dangerous and how wrong your decision to vaccinate is?

In fairness, the OP asked for information about vaccinations to show the other person to allow them to make an informed choice - there was no mention of trying to persuade said family member (even though she acknowledges that she is angry about it) and no suggestion that she was going to force the issue. As far as I know, if I choose not to vaccinate my offspring, I just cancel the appointment and that's pretty much it apart from a few reminder letters which contain a paragraph (if that) about the importance of the vaccine. I think that the posters on here are being really optimistic about the amount of time HCPs spend on educating patients unless they specifically ask for information, which it doesn't sound like the OPs family member has.

OP I don't think YABU to be concerned, or to bring it up in conversation and offer some relevant information - presumably it's not just about herd immunity, it's about concern for your niece. I don't think every parenting decision should be up for discussion, but I also think people should be able to discuss big issues without being dismissed as judgy and interfering. I'd certainly be surprised if parent's never discussed the decisions that they've made - personally I have been discussing the chicken pox vaccine with a number of other parents and shared relevant information supporting our various occasionally opposing positions without anyone being 'considered an estranged relative' or even needing to take the slightest whiff of offence.

If we saw a parent doing the school run blind drunk most of us would intervene, because their compromised judgement posed a risk to the child's health and safety. How is this different? Claiming that decisions on vaccines are solely the parent's decision, or "her child, her choice" is lazy, flawed thinking. If the parent intends a course of action which jeopardizes the child, there is a moral obligation to intervene, because the health of a child who cannot advocate for themselves is at stake.

Failing to vaccinate your children is neglect - it is no different to failing to provide them with adequate nutrition. In terms of its impact on wider society, shirking vaccinations is morally equivalent to tax evasion or benefit fraud: those who do it derive the benefit and reduced risk of living in an immunized population, without paying their dues by getting themselves or their children immunized.

It is in no way the same as doing the school run blind drunk.

If someone has weighed up the pros and cons of vaccination and decided not to do it then it's no one else's business. They have the parental responsibility and they have the right to make that decision. Vaccination carries risk of allergic reaction at the very least, yes it's a small risk but it's there. It is not 100% guaranteed, vaccines don't always take or new strains develop and so on, necessitating the need for further vaccination. If a parent doesn't want to take those small risks then they are without their rights not to without interference or intervention.

You can't say someone has compromised judgement just because they make a decision that differs to your own. If the viewpoint was reversed and not vaccinating was the norm then it would be your judgement that was deemed to be compromised. I doubt anyone here would take kindly to 'well meaning' people constantly telling them why theory decision is wrong and why they shouldn't vaccinate and how selfish it is and so on.

It's everyone's business. Herd immunity, as has been mentioned already. Its not that difficult to grasp, but sadly the "none of your business" gang on MN always like to have a rant. We live on a small and heavily populated island, so we need to have a social conscience when it comes to these things, and protect the vulnerable in society ie small babies, immunocompromised people, who can't have vaccines.

Um, drunk driving is illegal. Not vaccinating isn't. No comparison.

No, other peoples medical history and that includes vaccination status is none of your business. Keep your beak out.

Bearfrills

If someone has weighed up the pros and cons of vaccination and decided not to do it then it's no one else's business.

But the OP says her family member hasn't - so is it ok for them to try and intervene?

But it is everyone's business - herd immunity as mentioned many times above. For all thoses on here who are shouting parental choice, what about people who are immuno-suppressed and don't have the choice?

If you decline all vaccinations you are not only putting your childs health at risk, but other peoples.
I agree with gfrnn that it would be tantamount to neglect.

If you thought someone was intentionally exposing their child to a dangerous situation you would do nothing? Not say anything?

grfnn

I think I have heard it all now.