Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
captainfarrell · 31/03/2015 15:48

Didn't even know it was offered to babies. I wasn't offered it for my two(not in London) but my eldest is 14 and due to have it soon. It's known as the spitting disease and if you're in a high risk area, I think i'd give it to mine to be safe. She'll have it later anyway won't she?

PigletJohn · 31/03/2015 15:55

If vaccination is less than 100% effective, that makes it even more important to vaccinate the maximum possible number of people.

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 15:57

So you disagree with the NHSs approach then PJ?

PigletJohn · 31/03/2015 16:04

No, but I definitely do disagree with people who say "It isn't totally effective so don't have it"

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 16:08

I haven't seen anyone say that.

GoodbyeToAllOfThat · 31/03/2015 16:10

It could reasonably be inferred from your series of posts, bumbley.

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 31/03/2015 16:19

My BCG scar itches sometimes when it's about to rain

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 16:24

We'll let me spell it out for people who think it was inferred then. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the TB vaccine. I think that people should be aware that it isn't as effective against pulmonary Tb in adults not does it provide lifelong immunity so using grandparents/uncle's/next door neighbours' experiences of adult TB to try to convince the OP to vaccinate her young baby doesn't really make sense.

She is perfectly entitled to decide against this vaccine. She has discussed it with her GP (who knows more about her family than we do) and doesn't consider her to be high risk. She is not only deciding not to vaccinate because the baby might end up with a scar (which many of you have latched on to).

PigletJohn · 31/03/2015 17:04

the upside is reduced chance of catching TB, potentially brain damaging; and the downside is increased chance of a scar on the arm.

Have I missed something?

Original poster
lill72 · 31/03/2015 18:07

I think everyone has jumped on the 'scar' bandwagon and focusing too heavily on this. The scar is one consideration, not the only consideration.

From my point of view... I have little frame of reference..

I have not grown up with anyone (I know of) that has had the BCG, so a mark on your arm, so normal to you perhaps, is not normal to me. Hence why it is possibly a bit confronting. You find this silly, well sorry I do not.

I have not grown up knowing about TB being a danger, so I dont have much reference/knowledge about it. I have never heard it talked about in Australia. Not saying it does not exist, but the incidence of it must be so low.

I know of a girl who has quite a bad scar, so perhaps considered them all to be like this.

What I am trying to say, is that I have not grown up in a place where this disease was a real problem, so I am only learning about it now. I did not realise the risk was so great. This thread does nake me think, so thank you.

I am coming from a different prespective than many of you, as I did not grow up in the Uk. So something that may seem silly/obvious to you,, may not to me. You know what I mean.

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 18:54

You might find this information useful:PHE report I know it's long but you can pick out the information that's relevant to you based on where you are/age of child etc. so you can work out risk. Did the GP explain why you weren't considered high risk? Maybe you'll find some information in the above doc that will clarify it for you. Good luck with your decision Thanks.

Stratter5 · 31/03/2015 19:01

I'd infinitely prefer to take my chances with a 70% effective vaccine, than get TB; I think it was that, tbh even 30% is better than nothing. I can't got the life of me see how it not being 100% effective equals don't bother with it because it might not work. Crazy thinking.

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 19:04

Good job no one is saying that then Stratter5.

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 19:06

The 70% effective isn't against pulmonary TB btw - it's less effective against that. (See above link to NHS)

TooSpotty · 31/03/2015 19:07

My friend moved from a low-risk area of London (Richmond) to a high-risk one (Clapham) when her children were pre-schoolers and too old to get jabbed. They then moved abroad after the elder started school and the younger had been at nursery. Both children have since been diagnosed with latent TB and are on long courses of substantial antibiotics. At least they were caught in time hopefully. My mother-in-law had TB as a child and spent over a year in hospital.

We are in a high-risk place and both my kids had the BCG, as will my next.

AGirlCalledBoB · 31/03/2015 19:07

My son had it when he was 6 weeks old because we live in a area at high risk of TB. Never considered not having it to be honest, any protection from a disease is better than none at all.

The scar did come up quite bad but it is fading so you would not really notice it now he is 19 months old unless it was pointed out.

MummyLuce · 31/03/2015 20:21

I'm in same situation as you and didn't get it for mine. TB is actually not very infectious, and is risky only in over-crowded, poorly sanitised conditions. So you may officially live in a high risk borough, but do you live amongst high risk groups in over crowded conditions? If not, I'm sure it's fine.

Stratter5 · 31/03/2015 20:39

Afraid I'm with the many others who have commented on your posts, bumbly; you infer a lot, and are rather disingenuous

TooSpotty · 31/03/2015 20:41

My friend lived in a Naice Victorian house and her kids went to Naice nurseries and schools. It didn't stop her children catching it. My own HV put it that people who do live in dangerous conditions have a habit of mixing with those who don't.

bumbleymummy · 31/03/2015 20:45

Stratter - all both of them? I'm not sure what you think is disingenuous about anything I've posted. I don't see the point in derailing the thread but feel free to PM me.

CapnMurica · 31/03/2015 20:46

I wouldn't consider not having it, and think your reasons are spurious in the extreme. If you have no experience of TB (and I would expect not many people would in this day and age...because of vaccinations) then maybe you should try and educate yourself that way than just not having the vac?

It's not offered in my area but I would take it if it was. I would always rather protect against the potential of contracting a life threatening disease than not.

Also, the 'quite bad scar' is probably because she had it as a teenager. I literally cannot tell you of one person I know that has a noticeable scar nowadays.

Skiptonlass · 31/03/2015 20:53

Please vaccinate your child. Please, please please.

A jab takes seconds - multi drug resistant TB is on the rise and there are strains now which it is almost impossible to treat.

You may be low risk but you're not, I repeat not, no risk. Your child could have a close friend at school with active TB, for instance.

Please, vaccinate your kid.

CapnMurica · 31/03/2015 20:59

By your reasons there is no reason to vaccinate at all then, surely?

After all, have you had contact with diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella? Probably not.

SaBearOz · 31/03/2015 21:09

OP I understand TB isn't talked about much now in Australia because we have had such low rates for a number of years. Unfortunately in London this isn't the case. I understand the wish not to scar your DC but my DS is now 3 and his chicken pox scares are more noticeable (possibly because they are only a year old) and my DD who is 1 is hardly noticeable at all. Perhaps the child u saw has skin that scares more than others. Having had a child end up in ICU on a ventilator for a disease I could have immunised for (it was chicken pox) made me feel horrible that I hadn't paid for him to get immunised (he would have had it in Australia as it's part of the schedule) and I am not sure I could have lived with my guilt had the worst happened- I can only imagine this guilt would have been made worse had I actively refused the immunisation. Ultimately it's your choice as a parent but someone's child has to be the statistic to get TB without any 'high' risk factors

alteredimages · 31/03/2015 21:23

We live in a very populous country which in which the BCG is mandatory and administered to all babies at 3 days old. I am not a medical professional but I cannot recall any reports of problems.

My DS was born in another country and had the BCG at six weeks old. They administered it on the underside of his arm so the scar is not visible. DD had hers at 3 days old on the outside of her arm and I have to really look to see the scar.

Smallpox scars, now they are something you would notice. MIL's takes up a large part of her upper arm and she says it is because the vaccine was administered by scratching the skin, not a single jab. Shock

In the end, whether or not to give your child the BCG is your choice but I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't want to have such a well tested and important vaccine. 70% or less effectiveness is not ideal but it is a damn sight better than 0%.