To think this takes not vaccinating to a whole new level

[Swanlaked]

DD has a child at school who has cancer. The school sent a letter home asking all parents to please think about giving their child the MMR if they haven't had it and also to inform them immediately if any child was in contact with chicken pox.

One of the mums at the school is still refusing to have her 3DC vaccinated. No health issues it's big pharma/poison/conspiracy theory crap

AIBU at this point to think the school should seek removal of the children and tell the bloody thicko to find another school for them?

giving consent*

I think it has to be the parents decision as if it goes wrong, which it sometimes does, parents are left holding the baby. Very little state support ( much less than you can imagine) and it's then the parents life that is altered too. Unless you wish to have said child adopted.

If people are happy for children to have vaccines witheld when the children haven't been given a choice (high risk), then why is it wrong for children to be given the vaccines when they haven't been given a choice (very low risk).

It's not the parent's body, it's the child's body. Nobody asks for the child's consent either way. At least if they are vaccinated, they and others are kept safer from disease.

akdmummy

No, I wasn't vaccinated as a child but in my early twenties I asked my GP for help and was given a catch up run of 7 vaccines over a few weeks. I got them on the NHS. They did have to order them in specially though so I had to wait a little while to start.

woman You should be very careful when taking away freedom for parents to use their own judgement in raising children. It's a slippery slope that really has no end point. For instance, would you be happy for children to be placed on a compulsory diet if their BMI is slightly over the healthy limit, with possible removal from their parents if it didn't come down? What about compulsory fluoride tablets for children with tooth decay? School nurses deciding if children are sick enough to stay at home or come to school?

gonetoseeamanaboutadog aside from the slightly over the BMI part of your comment, what is the problem with these things? If parents exercise free will which causes harm to children it's neglect.

For the umpteenth time, it is not about removing parental choice. It is about protecting the community (including adults at risk, like me) from horrible avoidable diseases. If you don't want to give your child a half decent diet or you don't encourage them to brush their teeth. I don't really care. But I do care when selfish parental decisions put me at direct risk. Which is what happens when you undermine the principle of herd immunity.

yawn

You've done a lot of talking, and I've listened. But you haven't responded to purple's very articulate and informed post. She made a number of points including the absence of social responsibility working both ways.

I lose respect for posters who don't engage with inconvenient points.

Absolutely aye. Parents do not own children to do whatever they want with them, and the whole of society has a stakey in ensuring children are healthy.

It's not ok to starve your child, so why is medical neglect (denial of medicine, which I experienced) sanctioned by society?

i dont vaccinate my children, i've explained why here previously, so I dont feel inclined to do so again, but these posts always confuse me. Its the ONLY time as a parent where you are supposed to put the welfare of everyone else above your own child.
I wont vaccinate my child because of emotional blackmail. There are sound reasons I chose not too and attempting to make me feel bad about it with talk of how I'm risking other people's lifes won't work. I'm not a monster, or an idiot. I'm aware there are risks associated with my choice, and of course if my child was to give an immune suppressed person an illness i'd feel awful. truly, truly awful. but that isn't enough to make me chance the well being of my own child. I wouldn't expect any parent to risk their child for mine, so I don't expect to do that either.

I'm sorry but if you think that it's unfair to 'make' a child get a vaccination, try being the parent who has to hold their screaming child down week in week out for at least 3 years as they get their port put in and chemo administered.

Yawn - don't you also care about the poor child on the receiving end? Who has no choice in the matter.

I care when children are denied food, or shelter, or medicine, or basic healthcare such as vaccinations. Because I don't want children to suffer because of their parent's neglect.

Its the ONLY time as a parent where you are supposed to put the welfare of everyone else above your own child.

What? How about:

• Teaching your child to put their hand over their mouth when they sneeze
• Teaching your child not to steal
• Teaching your child not to hit people when they're upset

+1,00,000 other examples that responsible parents follow.

I'm sorry but if you think that it's unfair to 'make' a child get a vaccination, try being the parent who has to hold their screaming child down week in week out for at least 3 years as they get their port put in and chemo administered

Great - that's not true. The risk to your own child if they get one of the diseases is greater than the risk posed by vaccination.

Gone you tell me what I need to do to be more socially responsible. If you don't want to hear about the direct impact parental selfishness has on me, then don't read.
Purple did not say anything that changes my view. I have a child and I vaccinated her because
a) I want to protect her from horrible illness
b) it is the socially responsible thing to do.
Did I wince at the prospect of her having a negative reaction? Of course, I did. But I did it anyway.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for people like Bishop who have described a real life experience of what "it going wrong" looks like.
However, I am still at risk from catching measles because of those who spout Big Pharma bollocks. Nothing purple or anyone else has posted changes that.

It's not ok to starve your child, so why is medical neglect (denial of medicine, which I experienced) sanctioned by society?

Because a small number of those children will be seriously harmed by this 'medical care'. No one is in a position to make such a decision over the parents' heads.

Your issues about your mum are for another thread, really.

*What? How about:

• Teaching your child to put their hand over their mouth when they sneeze
• Teaching your child not to steal
• Teaching your child not to hit people when they're upset*

none of those pose any adverse risk to the child. completely different.

You should be very careful when taking away freedom for parents to use their own judgement in raising children.

Society already does this! Just look at laws about children wearing seatbelts, flouride in drinking water in many areas etc. It's not a new thing.

Well I'm a grandmother and I did vaccinate my own dd, but a few years, shocked at the huge vaccine schedule set out for my dgd, I started to read up as much as I could about vaccines and, if I were a mother of small children nowadays, I would definitely not vaccinate them.

Great - that's not true. The risk to your own child if they get one of the diseases is greater than the risk posed by vaccination

not for all children it isn't. I wish I could be as trusting in vaccination and not have to agonise over it, and doubt myself and my decision. but when you are stuck between a rock and hard place its not that easy.

Bishop what was the bacterial infection your DC had?

Atenco why? What exactly did you discover during your research that made you draw that conclusion?

The risk to your own child if they get one of the diseases is greater than the risk posed by vaccination

The meaning of this is unclear.

Do you mean that more children would be harmed by measles etc. than would be harmed by the vaccine?

Or that the damage done to a particular child by measles would probably be worst than the damage done by a vaccine, if they got unlucky?

worse not worst