Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not want my baby to have the BCG?

204 replies

lill72 · 30/03/2015 12:16

Hi,
I went to give my 21 week old DD the BCG the other day, but then chickened out at the last moment, due to the scar. Hear me out - this is not the only reason. We live in London in what is considered a high risk area, but we are not considered high risk, according to the GP. He said he would feel comfortable not giving it. We are from Australia where it is not given, and we will most likely return within 5-7 years, ie before DD goes to sschool. As you need repeated contact with a person who has it, I just consider our risk so low, that I don't feel out individual circumstances warrant it.
Thoughts?

The GP said many parents with simialr backgrounds or are going to move out of London when their children go to school dont get it either. Thoughts?

OP posts:
SophieandHerSnail · 30/03/2015 12:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheFecklessFairy · 30/03/2015 12:23

21 weeks sounds SO young. She is actually 5 months old - sounds better.

Having said that (oooooh the mental arithmetic MN requires these days) - if you consider it not necessary then don't give it.

CalicoBlue · 30/03/2015 12:27

The HV wanted me to give my DD hers at birth as we lived near the airport. As she was not going to the airport, I did not give it to her. She is now a teenager and is fine.

KeturahLee · 30/03/2015 12:30

Your 5 month old will be at nursery in 3 years and school in 4.

LadyGregory · 30/03/2015 12:30

My London-born son had it as a matter of course at six weeks three years ago. I think calling it a 'scar' is a pretty emotive description of a small, flat, slightly shiny mark, tbh, but then I come from a place with a long history of TB, have seen the devastation it caused in my own family, and that little mark for me is a sign of medical progress. Also it's familiar - mine is no longer at all visible, but my husband's is, just, and that of most family/friends.

piggychops · 30/03/2015 12:33

I had a flat mate who developed TB in her early 20s. It's called consumption for a reason. We thought she was anorexic she lost so much weight. No other symptoms. Missed by several doctors until she saw one of the very elderly partners who took one look at her and sent her for a chest X-Ray. Thankfully it was a strain which responded to meds but she missed a nearly a whole term of uni.

wanttosqueezeyou · 30/03/2015 12:33

If you're happy and your GP is happy why are you still thinking about it? Is someone else (her Dad?) keen for her to have it?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 30/03/2015 12:35

DS1 had it at 8 weeks - no additional risks, just we lived in an inner London borough. It wasn't a big deal at all. I don't know why you wouldn't have it if offered. DS2 hasn't had it because we moved boroughs but I wouldn't hesitate to give it him.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 30/03/2015 12:37

By the way, your GP sounds like an idiot.

Original poster
lill72 · 30/03/2015 12:40

Keturah - I have a 4 year old, so I know the school/nursery ages. I chose not to have it with my four year old, for the reaons above abd after consulting drs here and in the UK. Even though it is ok to say no, I guess there is a teeny tiny chance they may come into conctact with it. hence my doubt. But, I think the chance is very slight.

Just interested in others thoughts and what others have done? ie others who have said no?

OP posts:
KeturahLee · 30/03/2015 12:41

Sorry OP, you said you'd be moving in 5-7 years before your DD started school, which suggested you thought she wouldn't be at school in 5 years.

Original poster
lill72 · 30/03/2015 12:43

Tondel -strange to say the GP is not an idiot. He told me all the facts and his exact words were that he would not feel negligent not giving it to my daughter and that I could go away and think about it. As I seemed very unsure that day.

OP posts:
Theas18 · 30/03/2015 12:51

Someone said " the BCG does not protect against drug resistant TB"

Evidence please? I'd have though there was no reason it would not and possibly the biggest reason to have it

tiggytape · 30/03/2015 12:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LadyGregory · 30/03/2015 12:54

Five to seven years of potential contact with TB carriers or sufferers is quite a lot, and your four year old is presumably at or about to go to school in London? I think that eventually returning to Australia is a bit of a red herring in the circumstances.

And the 'scar' is a pretty superficial reason for not giving your children an important protection if they live in a high-risk area. I was pretty sure we would leave London before DS started school - we left when he was under one - but I still made sure he had it.

LittleBearPad · 30/03/2015 12:58

Mine had it and DD (2) has a scar. DS (16 weeks) also had it and is still a bit scabby. I debated whether it was necessary but didn't feel strongly it wasn't. I don't think they are at high risk either.

GraysAnalogy · 30/03/2015 13:00

Due to the scar ffs.

StopTheFog · 30/03/2015 13:02

If your doctor is advising that you don't need the jab that's one thing, but to reject it on the grounds of the 'scar'? I'm staggered. That's a very trivial reason. It's a tiny indentation and most people have them. You just don't notice them as they are so common.
I'm not able to judge your risk levels, or know what led your GP to advise it wasn't necessary, but I sure as hell wouldn't risking my child's lifelong health because they might end up with a tiny indentation on their arm.

Teapot13 · 30/03/2015 13:02

The countries that don't give it chose not to because it is not very effective. The UK has had relatively good experience with it but doctors in the US always act like I was wrong to give it to DD. (It interferes with the skin test that is routinely used here, so if DD tests positive she may need a chest x-ray. Luckily the doctor here said they don't require treatment anymore of children who test positive because of BCG!)

We lived in an area of London where it was recommended, and we always give all vaccines that are recommended/offered (sometimes more), but BCG is one where reasonable minds can differ.

I don't know why you are thinking not to give it, but it seems to be a very safe vaccine -- it has been given for a really long time.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 30/03/2015 13:03

So you've decided not to give it your children. You're happy with the decision. So is your doctor and you only want to hear from others who made the same decision so you confirm that you were right

OK, not sure what you want out of this thread.

Original poster
lill72 · 30/03/2015 13:03

Sorry Ketur - DD will be starting school in 2019 which is just shy of 5 years. Hence my slightly babybrainsh thinking!

OP posts:
MaMaPo · 30/03/2015 13:04

I'm Australian and my dd was born in London. We returned home before she was a year old. She still got the bcg (no scar), there was no reason not to.

I had to get my bcg as an adult. It was a pain and I have quite a visible scar.

Original poster
lill72 · 30/03/2015 13:05

Sophie - where did you get that information on the biggest threat?

OP posts:
TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 30/03/2015 13:05

Oh and the scar thing - DS is 6 and you can't see it.

AmberLav · 30/03/2015 13:08

In my NCT group, one family had a lot of worry when their childminder was diagnosed with TB. They regreted not getting the jab when it was offered. In the end, they were fine, but they were a lot more worried than some of the other parents.

I figure that the NHS don't offer the BCG routinely at secondary school like I had, so just after birth was my only opportunity to get it for them. Mine had theirs before they were a month old... DS's exploded in a shower of pus 8 weeks later (normal)! DD's scar looked a lot better once she was over 1 but hers didn't give off any pus (also normal).