Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Original poster

To keep unvaccinated step children away from my newborn?

222 replies

sydneycat · 02/12/2013 06:23

Its a bit of a long one but here goes.

I am a step mother to two boys 4 and 6. The 6 year old has autism which my partner attributes to jabs he recieved at 6 months. As a medical professional I know there is no substance to that at all but my partner won't be swayed.
I love both boys very much and am very happy to be a part of their lives. However I am very concerned as both boys are constantly sick with colds and various bugs. We also live in a area with a low vaccination rate. My baby is due to be born in winter and there have been worsening outbreaks of whooping cough.
I am concerned about them spending time with the baby before it has its shots as the baby will have no protection against whooping cough which is highly dangerous and often fatal to very young babies.
My partner is extremely anti vaccine given his eldests autism. I love him and we are extremely happy but I am not happy about putting my baby at this much risk, what is the best way to broach this?

OP posts:

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 02/12/2013 16:39

But, needaholidaynow, is OP going to keep everyone (including her husband) away for three months? Anyone could be carrying whooping cough, that's the point we're trying to make. The baby's siblings are no greater risk than a vaccinated or unvaccinated adult. Husband get a bit upset for a bit or put the baby's life in danger? No brainer. After all, why would you want the baby's father around "for the sake of principles"? OK, yes, it's his home and family but he can just stay out of his own home and not see his family for three months. No brainer, apparently.

In fact, OP should probably have a homebirth rather than risk exposing her baby to whooping cough in hospital. One of my concerns about DS's neonatal whooping cough is that I was in the maternity unit for a couple of days and then on the postnatal unit for another four days with what I now know was the early stages of an undiagnosed whooping cough infection. I have no idea how many babies I may have accidentally infected. Chances are that there won't be anyone like me on her maternity unit, but there could be. Put the baby's life in danger by going into hospital when statistically home births are just as safe? No brainer, surely...

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 16:41

Oh FFS. I am in a similar position as the OP's partner. My younger children are unvaccinated not because of 'principles' but because bluntly I do not wish to be cleaning 3 sets of adult children's teeth when I'm 85. Cleaning & bathing one 57 year old adult child when I'm 85 is enough (actually one too many) thanks.

And yes, I have discussed this with the (few) doctors who actually know something about autism.

Honestly if you think this man is acting out of principles you have no idea.

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 02/12/2013 16:46

"OP certainly can prevent her child from seeing the stepchildren and indeed anyone whom she knows to be unvaccinated, particularly in the early months. It's just that this will either involve her persuading DH or one of them being willing to end the relationship over it..."

Well, it's not just that. There's also that it would be utterly pointless to do that because people who are vaccinated are just as big a risk, since THERE IS NO HERD IMMUNITY FOR WHOOPING COUGH. Which is a reasonably big issue with the scenario.

NewBlueCoat · 02/12/2013 16:48

same here, saintly.

quite frankly, cleaning my 9 year old's teeth (and wiping her bottom, and still cutting up all her meals and occasionally helping spoonfeed too, and sourcing new cups she can actually drink out of, and so on and so bloody on) is too much already (I know you know this).

there is no way I was going to take a chance with subsequent children. and I do not believe that anyone who has seen a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine in one of their children would feel much different, tbh.

FluffyJumper · 02/12/2013 17:20

saintlyjimjams I think people think he's doing it out of ignorance, not principles.

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 17:25

Ah yes. From people who are utterly ignorant about autism themselves

Chunderella · 02/12/2013 17:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hippo123 · 02/12/2013 17:41

To be honest I think contact with your step kids shouldn't be your main concern. I wouldn't think your dh won't want the baby (or you) vaccinated at all, and i can't say i blame him. How do you feel about that? Could you agree to compromise, either by delaying them or going down the single jabs route? You certainly can't keep your baby away from his/her siblings.

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 02/12/2013 17:46

But you appeared to be arguing ("It's just that...") that the only reason not to keep the baby's siblings away for three months was that it might involve ending the relationship and it was unclear whether the parents were willing to go that far. In my opinion the fact that keeping them away would almost certainly achieve nothing is just as good a reason.

Just on the facts as given in the OP (they "seem to pick up everything going" plus there have been severe outbreaks of wc in the local area over the last couple of years, plus they have in the past had severe coughs that have gone on for ages) it sounds quite likely that they've had it so their vaccination status would be irrelevant. And it also sounds like the elder boy was vaccinated with DTaP on schedule. And at their age if they had been vaccinated on the normal schedule (in which case the OP would be perfectly happy to have them around her baby) their immunity would probably have worn off by now. So their immunity is probably the same as if they'd been vaccinated and quite possibly (if they've actually had wc in the last couple of years) better than if they'd been vaccinated.

The argument isn't "because we can't entirely protect our children we shouldn't do anything at all" (I'm not aware that anyone has actually put forward that argument, but thank you for dealing with it anyway); it's "this proposed course of action is very very unlikely to do anything whatsoever to protect your baby at all and very very very very unlikely to do anything to protect your baby over and above the situation you'd have been perfectly happy with (i.e. if the siblings had been fully vaccinated)." And if the question is how far both parents are willing to go to achieve absolutely nothing then it's a bloody stupid question.

NorthernShores · 02/12/2013 17:47

I agree that on going care issues for your child is going to be a bigger issue between you and needs discussing. There's no question I would definitely have any children vaccinated and on schedule and I'd struggle to be with anyone a bit woo when it came to my children's health.

NewBlueCoat · 02/12/2013 17:50

FFS, NorthernShores.

It is not 'a bit woo' to not follow the standard vaccination schedule when you have already had one child damaged by vaccination.

Chunderella · 02/12/2013 18:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FluffyJumper · 02/12/2013 18:16

But the child has not been damaged by vaccination, the OP says.

So 'woo' here is a sort of shorthand for 'irrational'.

Pagwatch · 02/12/2013 18:23

The OP said nothing of the sort. She said in her opinion her partner is wrong. She could be a dental assistant and know fuck all about it.

NewBlueCoat · 02/12/2013 18:25

The OP says he DP attributes his child's autism to vaccination. If that is not damage, then what is?

You have no way of ascertaining if this is 'woo' or 'irrational'. He is not the only parent to think this way.

There is nothing at all irrational about avoiding something for future children which has caused real (and lifelong) problems for your first child.

lljkk · 02/12/2013 18:31

OP is L O N G G O N E

Bogeyface · 02/12/2013 18:35

But the child has not been damaged by vaccination, the OP says

Not so.

The OP seems very sceptical that the child was damaged by the vaccination but given that she didnt know the child until well after he was vaccinated and after the dx of autism, how would she know?

There is an awful lot of ignorance surrounding autism and its causes, even amongst the medical profession as was mentioned by PP. The OP doesnt know that it didnt cause damage and her DP believes that it did and given that he was there at the time, I would be inclined to go with his view.

As for saying that she should leave him because he wont get access in the time between the birth and his injections, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous OTT things I have ever read on MN, and I have seen some doozies! This is to avoid her baby catching something that her baby could catch from the GP at her 6 weeks check! Or her HV at baby clinic, or another adult at baby clinic or the kid that coughed next to them in the queue at Tesco. Wow, just...wow!

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 18:43

The OP said 'as a medical professional I know there is no substance to it' which suggests she's a medical professional who knows sweet FA about autism. Those medical professionals that do actually know something about current autism research would not make such a sweeping statement.

FluffyJumper · 02/12/2013 18:44

I think they discredited the whole 'vaccination causes autism' theory though. It is my belief that people with children with autism are so grief stricken they can't see straight and want to latch on something that is easy to understand.

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 18:48

Oh dear god. I assume you're some sort of wind up merchant.

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 18:50

Like I said, pointless trying to discuss the issue with people who don't even realise there's no such thing as autism. (It's plural)

lottieandmia · 02/12/2013 18:52

Unfortunately a lot of people are incredibly dismissive about possible triggers of autism because they know very little about what it's actually like to have a child who will always need 24 hour care. That's because all the authorities want people to focus on is preventing disease in the short term. Anyone who dares to disagree with the entire vaccination program becomes a social pariah.

As someone who also has a child who will always need 24 hour care, I can tell you that it's something anyone would want to avoid if they could, particularly because we do not live in a world where the resources a mentally impaired person needs are easy to get. For example, I'm still prompting my 12 year old daughter to eat her dinner right now, an hour after her NT, younger siblings left the table. She isn't able to do anything for herself at all. So to be insulting about someone who thinks they know the cause of their child's condition is rude and ignorant, particularly when you know nothing about the child anyway. I'm not directing that at the OP, btw but more at the person who called this man a 'f*ing idiot' or whatever.

NewBlueCoat · 02/12/2013 18:53

Do you think that the medical professionals (proper, paediatricians, with some knowledge about autism) who told me it was highly likely that my dd1 was damaged by vaccines were also completely grief stricken? And so overcome with grief for this child they had never seen before that they wanted to find something to blame?

Or maybe, having considered er medical (and family) history, do you think they based their statement in, oh, I dunno, erm, fact

lottieandmia · 02/12/2013 18:54

' is my belief that people with children with autism are so grief stricken they can't see straight and want to latch on something that is easy to understand.'

What an ignorant and patronising perspective

saintlyjimjams · 02/12/2013 18:55

I've obviously met some grief stricken consultants and researchers in my time as well newblue :opens another box of tissues to weep into:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9