To not want my baby to have the BCG?

[lill72]

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?

My DCs were not offered it as we are apparently not in a high risk area which is pretty odd to me as we live in Westminster which could hardly be more mixed. My DCs are almost the only children of English heritage in their classes at school. I can't imagine why Westminster is a no but Camden (0.5miles away and similar mix) is a yes.

I was thinking about getting them vaccinated anyway but don't know who to talk to about the pros and cons. Our GP couldn't be more useless but I put this down to the fact that, ironically, they spend a lot of this time targeting services at a specific local immigrant community who tend not to speak much English so they are good on that and not good on the stuff I need. So much for our area being monocultural and low risk

I actually declined the BCG for my newborn, and I'm no anti-vaxxer.

Yes, I felt it was a particularly nasty vaccination for such a tiny baby, and I didn't want her perfect skin to be scabby and weeping and scarred so soon.

Also, the criteria for the BCG seemed a bit off. She only qualified because one set of grandparents are from India. Bearing in mind they don't travel, I considered her no more at risk of TB than a White British child living in the same street. So I felt pretty relaxed about declining.

I don't quite understand why it was taken off the vaccination programme circa year 9, which is when I got it.

My DS has had it. He was also exposed to TB whilst at hospital for a hearing test at 3 days old. (We're in London)

You may not think you are in contact with sufferers but if you are using public transport and services its a risk. That's why they offer it in these areas.

You seem remarkably ignorant about the subject, so why don't you do some proper research rather than asking a bunch of randoms on the internet?

Yanbu. It's your choice.

I don't know why you wouldn't just get it to be honest. We're so lucky in the western world to be offered all these wonderful vaccinations and drugs, why not make the most of it?!

I had the BCG when about 14 and have no mark at all on me from it.

DS had it at a few weeks old, he barely has a mark on his arm. Sorry but your reasons seem totally bizarre to me.

Seaoflove it was taken of the vaccination program as there was very little incidence in UK population and the 'monitor' of TB levels in the UK, the cattle population had been clear for years.
Several things then happened, badger populations and deer populations rose ( natural reservoir) this lead to TB become epidemic in UK cattle population.
Also there was increasing immigration from areas of the world where there was more TB.
In the last 10 years TB rates have been exponential in their rise. Generalised vaccination programs can take a very long while to catch up with disease stats.
Finally the epidemiology ( methods of transmission) of TB is changing, for example we thought it was impossible for humans to get TB from cats with TB we now know this is not true.
In areas with really endemic TB there is now a significant risk to dogs being infected. We know it is possible, but it has not happened yet. We don't if a human could then contract it from a dog.
I live in an wildlife endemic area, but 'nice' Home Counties, but know a teacher who had to have 9 months off work after contracting TB from a pupil.
We have ideas about risks, but these are constantly being challenged and are changing all the time.

My DS had the BCG at 5 days old because I have been treated for TB myself. I contracted it as a child from a friend of my parents in Manchester. I failed the skin test 3 times as a teen but no-one twigged I had been infected until I went to US in my 20s and a chest x-ray confirmed I'd had active TB at some point and I was then treated for it.

My DS did have a mild reaction to the BCG probably because he had antibodies already from me, but at 5 the scar is hardly visible now.

Personally I would get it for your children if it's being offered. It's a horrible disease that spreads very easily and the treatment takes a long time.

My daughter had her BCG when we lived in Fulham.

About a month after she had the jab, one of the workers in her nursery was diagnosed with TB. I think I would have been pretty upset if I had turned it down, only for her to then be at risk of catching a life-altering disease.

I'm 27, got mine at 8 weeks and you can't see the scar.

My grandfather died because of TB.

YABU

Ps- I have 3 major surgical scars and plenty more from minor procedures. They saved my life - small price to pay.

My DD developed quite a nasty scar from the BCG, it got badly infected and she needed ABs. I was devastated. Even now 5 years later, I feel a bit sad when I see the scar. DS also has a scar although not quite as bad.

This being said I still have no regrets for vaccinating them, as I'm strongly in support of preventative medicine. But I can relate to OP not wanting to inflict that to her child if she is low-risk.

Funnily enough, a lot of the arguments rolled out on this thread ('it's just a scar and it could save her life') mirror exactly the arguments in favour of infant circumcision. Yet the reaction on MN couldn't be more different. Just saying :)

Primafacie- vaccination might make a small scar but doesn't disrupt normal sexual function. What a weird argument.

Mine both had it before they even left the hospital for the first time (ie less than 24 hours old). My granny died of tb and my father was really worried about its resurgence especially in West London so I did it for him really. Obviously it's entirely up to you and your GP but on the scar issue, I can honestly say that neither of them have a whisper of one so don't let that be a deciding factor. I know that all of us who had them at 12 still bear the scar but it doesn't seem to result in a scar if you are very young.

OMGmetoo, neither does circumcision.

Reading this thread has made me think I should push for my son to have it. We live in a high risk area of central ldn so DD had the jab when she was about 2 months old. My son hasn't had it as he was born when we lived in a very low risk area, and we since day moved. People are so mobile these days I don't really understand the logic for the Bcg vaccine in some areas but not others - particularly when the areas border (like westminster in ldn not giving it). This I think helps to contribute to logic that there is not much point in the vaccine . . .

We had DS vaccinated at about 3 weeks as we lived in a high risk area of London. We later moved to a much lower risk area of the country. DS has a very deep scar and we swim almost every week - despite it being on show all the time and being unusual here no one, including our families have ever noticed it.
If the scar is your only concern, I'd go for it.

I'd do it OP, and indeed will be doing for mine next week. The scar really isn't a big deal. You live in a high risk area, and based on what you say, your DD could well have extended contact with an affected person. If she's 21 weeks, presumably she'll go to school in 4.5 years ie before you go back. You may well send her to some kind of nursery provision before that too. I appreciate wanting to follow GP advice, I was actually told something similar by the GP who did my older DCs 8 week check, and followed that advice initially. Then I subsequently discussed it with other medical professionals, including another GP, who disagreed strongly. So we decided to get her done. In your shoes, I'd get a second opinion.

I had mine as a baby because I was in close contact with someone who has TB. The scar is so small you can only see it if you're really looking for it. Everyone else at school had them done aged 13/14 and ended up with terrible scars.

My DS had it shortly after birth. No bad reaction and no scar - or if there is one we can't find it.

Unless you are never going to go to a museum or a park, or on public transport, etc etc etc, I don't know why you wouldn't. If it's a choice between a couple of millimetres of possibly slightly shiny skin versus an illness that can kill you or make you very ill, there's no contest.

None of mine have had it, although it was offered. I plan to get them done when they're old enough to know not to knock the blister.

OP, if you decide not to go ahead and your child is unfortunate to be exposed to and develop TB, will you be using the NHS to provide expensive and avoidable treatment?

The whole point of vaccination is the 'herd' principle - by vaccinating the majority it puts the minority who for health implications cannot receive the injection at minimal risk and hopefully one day eradicate. Not vaccination because you're worried about a possible scar is a poor reason in my book.

I am old, and my father had TB when I was a baby so I was automatically vaccinated (and had a chest x-ray every few years too!)

I have never given a second thought to the 'scar', which is really just a pattern on my upper arm.

I wouldn't hesitate to give it if I lived anywhere there was the slightest risk.

Thing is, foslady, herd immunity to TB just won't exist in our children because the majority of children wont receive the vaccine - only those deemed high risk and from certain ethnic backgrounds. It's no longer given routinely to all.

DD had this at birth, she's 13 months and there is no scar. The hcp have your baby best interests at heart, id go and have it done.