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?

"ReallyTired, I had measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough along with everyone else in my family/the neighbourhood. It really wasn't that long ago that they were considered normal, childhood diseases that everyone went through so I don't think it's a case of people not knowing what these diseases are like anymore and them being part of history like the plague. I'm not that old!"

My children have had all their jabs without major complications. (Except the flu vax made dd ill for two days.) If we are going to use anecdotes then the fact that the MMR had not harmed my kids means they are safe.

Measles used to kill 1 in 1000 children and cause severe disablities in others.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22025104

There are strong statistics that show that measles is rather dangerous.

That's with the assumption that getting vaccinated makes you apart of the system.

But surely that's what we are discussing? Should it? I agree, as Yawn has said many times, that nobody should be forced (in a free society) to have their children vaccinated by making it a criminal offence not to do so. What is under discussion is whether opting out of the state sponsored vaccination programme means that you also opt out of other state sponsored healthcare, education and facilities because your child's presence increases the risk to others. I am merely saying that this concept is already applied to other areas and that to extend it to vaccination would not be to move into uncharted territory.

Of course, you can take this argument further - as is illustrated by the very sad case of the little boy with cancer who was removed from hospital against the doctors' advice and was made a ward of court. Parents think they have the right to decide on their child's medical treatment but, ultimately, that is not the case. To give an absurd example, I cannot demand that my child's leg is amputated because I believe that that would be best for her. I do not have the right unilaterally to decide that and have that happen. Moving back to reality, a Jehovah's Witness cannot disallow a life saving blood transfusion for a small (not Gillick competent) small child on the grounds of their own, no doubt fervently held, beliefs. The child would be made a ward of court. I therefore don't see it as such a big step to say, for example, that refusal to vaccinate means that that family is automatically referred to social services.

If we are talking philosophically, it's down to whether you think the beliefs (or even rights, if you want to use the more contentious term) of a small number should take precedence over the welfare of many. But practically? I think it's exactly the same argument we were having the other day about the lady who was terrified to let her son go to London on a school trip in case he was blown up by Jihadi terrorists. It's just a misunderstanding of risk. Nothing in life is risk free, including vaccination. But the risk of serious damage or death from contracting measles, mumps, Rubella etc are many, many times higher. People just aren't making a rational calculation of the risks of their actions and inactions.

RT, It used to be 1 in 10,000 then 1 in 5,000 and it's now quoted as 1 in 1,000.

I wasn't using my experience as an anecdote to say 'I'm fine so these diseases could never be considered a risk to others', I was using it to say that it wasn't that long ago that they were seen fairly regularly so I don't think it's necessarily the case that people just don't know what they're like.

I would like to think in a situation like the OP refers parents would rethink their decision not to vaccinate but it appears that won't happen.
I am very much pro vaccination and a lot of kids of anti vax parents are protected due to herd immunity from vaccines but sadly these parents generally don't see that.
Personally, I don't think no vaccination/no school is the correct way to go. As vaccinations have reduced or eliminated so many illnesses people are now unaware how serious they can be and think education about them should be introduced though avoiding a preachy way around it.
I recently discovered a friend (who I don't see often) is strongly anti vax and am still shocked she has been taken in by it all. Tho perhaps she thinks I'm taken in by big pharma.....

bumbleymummy, any individual person contracting a disease may or may not die, but countrywide we know some DO die, its just a matter of who. I cant find any verified cases that reactions to the vaccine does the same.

Out of ever one hundred non vaccinated people, 90 will get measles and 7 will get 'complications'.

Numbers of cases fell in 2014 and 2015, but have started to rise again in 2016. So ... more dead children.

No one has the right to impose a medical intervention on someone else's child.
If you opt out of the social contract then you should be refused ALL state benefits, from the NHS, to state schools.

It doesn't increase the risk that much. In many ways a vaccinated non immune child is more of a risk thank unvaccinated child. The parent of the second would be much more aware of, and cautious about, possible early symptoms.

If you're going to insist on this then you must agree to have you row children checked and rejabbed if they aren't immune.

Yeah bumble

I remember going to the Dr's fir vaccinations as a kid. I can still taste the one the did as drops. I remember. I also remember getting the rubella at primary school and the bcg at secondary.

I have still had German measles and mumps and they weren't thought of as anything serious by my family is dint remember being that I'll. Even with the glandular fever.

I'm not that old really either

And does anyone actually know if cases are actually increasing.

Or is it a case of before the majority of kids were fine and all was treated at home no issues and no official diagnosis, but now with the whole school absence crack down and schools demanding Dr's notes etc to prove absence, are people just hitting the Dr's more ergo increasing the diagnosis rates?

Natalia, for certain children, the risk of the vaccine may be higher than the risk of a) contracting the disease and b) suffering a complication from it (particularly for something like rubella). Unfortunately we currently have no reliable way of identifying those children pre-vaccine so most of their parents find out that their child can't/shouldn't be vaccinated because they were vaccinated and reacted badly to it.

I think the proposal that people should have to 'opt-out' of other public services because they have made the decision to selectively vaccinate/not vaccinate/delay certain vaccines would be unfair to people on lower incomes. Choice would become a privilege for the wealthy who could afford to pay for private schooling/healthcare and don't need benefits. I don't think that's a fair system at all.

Anyone saying the potential death of my child to save another can fuck right off.

My children have had all their jabs. I did delay the mmr a year or so but they are all up to date now.

I can't believe what I am reading though. I would never want to give the government the right to choose what they inject into a child or the family loses the support of benefits or the right to an education. It sets too dangerous a precedent. I would rather spend more money on research and education to increase uptake.

Well that's one way of putting it

And I'd ask if they were ok with giving something to their child that is known could potentially kill them...

Bumbley - agreed - but that's inherent in the nature of the population risk, surely? It is true in many medical situations - eg going under a general anaesthetic - but if you refused permission for your child to undergo what doctors believed was necessary surgery for that reason you would be overruled by the courts.

I'd say the same about your assertion that choice is a privilege of the wealthy - true in so many other respects. Don't want to wait 9 months for a hip replacement? Have it done next week privately. Don't fancy giving birth in the local hospital and want a consultant to deliver your baby? Take your pick, but only if you can pay? Don't fancy the local school? Go private. These things may not be palatable, but we accept them as a fact of life throughout the education and health system. Why not with this issue as well?

Natalia, for certain children, the risk of the vaccine may be higher than the risk of a) contracting the disease and b) suffering a complication from it (particularly for something like rubella). Unfortunately we currently have no reliable way of identifying those children pre-vaccine so most of their parents find out that their child can't/shouldn't be vaccinated because they were vaccinated and reacted badly to it.
And we won't know how at risk an individual child is/was at dying from measles (or whatever other disease) until they contract it and the illness takes it's course.

Well likewise you don't know what benefits may come with the disease

And I'd ask if they were ok with giving something to their child that is known could potentially kill them...

Bishop, I'm sorry your child had a v bad experience, but you could equally ask every parent who ever lets their child ride in a car if they're okay with letting their child be in a vehicle that could potentially kill them.

Anyone saying the potential death of my child to save another can fuck right off.

Of course - any parent at the micro level would say that. Presumably the parent with the daughter who has cancer referred to in the original post would say exactly that to the anti-vaxxer mother. It's about who, as a society, we choose to favour in that stand off.

as is illustrated by the very sad case of the little boy with cancer who was removed from hospital against the doctors' advice and was made a ward of court. Parents think they have the right to decide on their child's medical treatment but, ultimately, that is not the case

Are you referring to Ashya King? He seems to have done very well on the treatment his parents sought for him. Why should the state as a regular thing take take precedent over parents? Does the state cry more than the parents when a child dies or is brain damaged?

And are the diagnosis rates accurate also in the sense that it wasn't just sounded that's what it was?

Dd1 had the swine flu jab.

A few days later she was really poorly raging temperature , rash etc. Dr said it could well be swine flu given it was around in that area etc

But there was no diagnosis besides virus.

If it was counted then it really might not have been and it's false assumption.

If it wasn't then how many cases were missed because they assumed she was vaccinated and it couldn't be

If that makes any sense

WinchesterWoman - but whilst we do not know how badly any given individual will react to having a vaccine or contracting a disease that they could have been vaccinated against, we know that more children will react very badly to a disease than they will to a vaccine.

No we don't.

Natalia, I think that's different though because, in this example, you would be removing all choice/options available from those who can't afford to go elsewhere. They would be being forced into vaccination because they can't afford not to. They may not be able to pay for private surgery for their hip/private school etc but they still have something available. In the proposals above it would be a case of vaccinate or nothing (unless you can afford alternatives) which I think would be unfair.

Dybil, no you don't but for some children the risk of the vaccine will be higher so we can't really make statements such as 'the risk of the disease is much greater than the risk of the vaccine' for all children because for some children, it just isn't.

Why should the state as a regular thing take take precedent over parents?

It does - all the time - because parents do not have ultimate rights over a child. Generally parents act in what the state deems to be in the best interests of the child. Where a parent is abusive, in the final analysis the state will permanently remove that child from his/her care. Where a parent makes a medical decision that, in the opinion of the family court, is not in the best interests of the child, that will be disallowed and the views of the medics will prevail.

Headofthehive55 yes head i'll just stay in everyday shall i?
Unfortunately i don't think the dwp would be too happy about that