To suggest immunisations should be a legal requirement?

[rednailsredheart]

Look at it like this:

Wearing seatbelts it purely a safety issue. It's also a legal requirement in the UK to protect car passengers.

So why is immunisation not a legal requirement?

Likewise, drinking and driving is a criminal offence, due to the danger to the passengers and other drivers/people around you.

But deliberately choosing to let your child become a carrier of a totally preventable disease, infecting people around them (including those too young for immunisations), is totally fine? If someone doesn't vaccinate their child, then the child subsequently becomes gravely ill, why aren't the parents charged with neglect?

Makes me think of this article

ONION

hakulet so it (scarlet fever) is just like most of the the diseases we vaccinate against then?

No, jackieharris- because viruses are not treatable by antibiotics in the way that bacterial infections are.

No I really am going.

But in the same way that antibiotics now mean that scarlet fever can be treated, so can the serious complications of things like measles (such as pneumonia) be treated.

LurkingHusband - are you seriously suggesting that someone was blue lighted to hospital because they fainted because of a needle?

Bumbley, it's not worth it. People will minimise anything and everything.

I am well aware of how reactions to needles, and the act of vaccination (or donating blood) can vary.

I had a bad reaction to donating blood once. No idea what happened, I rocked up as usual, did my finger prick test as usual (borderline anaemic, as usual) and hopped on over to donate. Far from my first time, and all routine. Until the donation started, and I started to feel faint, came over a bit funny, and had to spend the next hour being monitored and trying hard not to faint a I attempted to get up. Oddly enough, sweet tea, a biscuit or two, and all-round niceness was the treatment I got, rather than being blue lighted to the nearest hospital and kept in for 2 days

My friends reaction was not because of the needle, or because of the situation (as in, he is not bothered by needles/vaccinations). He suffered a severe and instantaneous reaction, and this was ignored (well, he was taken to hospital, but the next couple of days were spent NOT talking about what might have caused it). It wasn't investigated, and the vaccine ruled out as a cause (which is what the reaction reporting scheme is for) not even a seconds consideration was given to it. Just ignored.

Antivax, I believe you too. I too had many years of my child's gut issues being belittled and overlooked. I was told that it was 'normal' for autistic children to have gut issues, and no further investigations were needed. I was told that a gf/cf diet was a waste of time and money, and would be detrimental to my child's health. It was the single biggest thing I ever did for my dd. the change in her was astronomical. She would not be where she is today if I had not changed her diet. Yet I was ridiculed for wanting to try it.

I thought 'environmental' triggers were now being investigated? Not that a vaccine will ever be accepted as one...

All these anti vaxxers are freeloading from the rest of us

I do not understand where that comes from or the logic behind it at all.

My DD has not had vaccinations, cost saving to the NHS. Apart from glue ear which I had treated through my private health care, she has not been to the doctor in 11 years.

Also I pay for the NHS in my taxes so am entitled to use it as much as anybody else if I need to.

With regard to Tetanus, my understanding when I researched it was that it does not last for long, the more doses you have it diminishes in effectiveness. As the high risk groups are the elderly, I felt it better not to give it to my baby who was unlikely to be doing anything that needed it, and let her/him have it as adults if they wished to, when it might be needed and would be more effective.

The anti-vaxers freeloading argument really annoys me. Precious few people posting here are wholly anti-vaccine. What I do see is a number of parents, usually with children with health problems, for whom the decision to vaccinate is not easy, and for them finding the best option to promote their child's health must be like treading through a minefield.

Would those who are of the opinion that non vaxers shouldn't be allowed to send their children to schools etc., care to swap places with a parent with a child with severe health problems? I strongly suspect not.

And no, this issue hasn't affected me personally - I am just a bit tired of the holier than thou attitude of some 'pro-vaxers'.

Freeloading?

Have ds1 for a week if you think we're fucking freeloading. Then imagine that - every day for the rest of your life.

Talk about absolutely no idea.

Saintly, you know people have no clue.

It's the same as the crappy social responsibility argument. Where's the responsibility when care and services are needed?

Dd1 is going through the roof at the moment, and I dread her getting even bigger. I hope things settle for you soon.

Finally, after getting my MP & a Minister involved & repeatedly reminding the LA of safeguarding issues something has been cobbled together for half term (I just hope it doesn't fall apart) & I can focus energy on getting the healthcare he needs. But it had to get dangerous first.

And that is why I laugh hollowly at any 'social responsibility' argument. Where is the responsibility for people like my son?

Exactly saintly. I'm glad you got something sorted for half term.

As far as I can see, the use of the social responsibility/herd immunity argument as an attempt to oblige others to vaccinate is a) born out of ignorance of the wider issues of herd and individual immunity b) a misrepresentation of the reasons why people do and don't vaccinate.

Looking at the last few pages of this thread, there seems to be a complete absence of knowledge and reading (but oddly, not strength of opinion) from posters arguing that others should be made to vaccinate. I believe that anybody who knows enough about the subject will understand that there are enough grey areas and reasons why some people might opt out of some/all vaccinations.

Oh, glad you've got something sorted,for half term. I hope it works out. I'm dreading it - dd1's phobias are out of control, and so I expect we'll be fairly housebound. Which will work well

Far from freeloading, people who choose not to routinely vaccinate their children, are less likely to be among the 50% of the population on prescription medicine and are more likely to pay for their own complimentary therapies rather than see the GP for non serious ailments.

I am against making vaccination a legal requirement. But. I have never had measles. I have MS. The vaccine would prompt a relapse. Getting measles would prompt a relapse. I therefore rely on the herd to protect me from measles. There is no herd immunity in my area. Tell me, anti-vaxers (not those whose children are also too poorly to have the vaccine), why is your position Ok?