Kids vaccinations - I would like the view from mothers

[OddJobMan]

Hi All.

First off I am a man before you ask but would love the view from Mothers perspective.

I reside on another forum and the discussion on kids vaccinations came up... one guy (who is not a parent) said he believes that the government should make it compulsory for parents to vaccinate their children and be fined if they don't. I personally believe vaccinations are a good thing but forcing more and more on parents and throwing legal action at them on ever little thing is going a step too far and where does this control stop..

So what say you Mums... should..

A. The government force vaccinations on children and fine parents that don't.

or

B. Leave it up-to the parents to decide.

Both DCs have been vaccinated with everything going, but not through the NHS; we did their MMR's and all their pre-school jabs separately as it just made more sense after DS1 reacted quite badly to his earlier vaccinations.

DS2 is vaccinated against chicken pox, too, after DS1's bout left him hospitalised and being given antibiotics via a drip. He was the most unwell I've ever seen him and I'd encourage parents to consider the CP vaccine rather than potentially having such a serious reaction to CP.

It would also be completely immoral to force children to take vaccines above and beyond those the adult population has - if we really want herd immunity, we would need to ensure that every adult is up to date with the vaccination programme as it is today (which is much, much more than what it was when I was a child). Otherwise the whole herd immunity notion is just so much bullshit.

So for those who'd keep unvaccinated children out of school or nursery 'unless there's a medical exemption', why, what's the difference? a child with a medical reason for not having vaccinations is just as likely to be a carrier and a 'danger' to other children as one whose parents don't have the medical exemption certificate so why not ban them too? If that's the reason?

post because those with Medical reasons for not being vaccinated have no choice and are the reason we need herd immunity.

I agree there's grey areas, but like others have said there's times when the government really does have to step in and force things through.

Look at the smoking ban in pubs and stuff - they made it voluntary but in the end it had to be forced because nobody was changing. Now nobody has to worry about getting cancer from 2nd hand smoke from working in a pub like Roy Castle.

With vaccinations, unless you have a valid medical exemption, they should be very heavily promoted. If you don't want them, fine, but you don't get to send your child to a mainstream school, you don't get treatment if they catch the illnesses that vaccines protect us from, and you don't get any state benefits.

Many people are anti-vaxxers because they are incredibly naive and believe everything on the internet. E.g. people thinking MMR causes autism, when there's no link at all.

Exactly harderandharder2breathe - my immuno-compromised son relied heavily on herd immunity. If his class had been full of anti-vaxxers we couldn't have had him in mainstream education.

you don't get treatment if they catch the illnesses that vaccines protect us from

You're honestly suggesting that a child shouldn't get the treatment they deserve because a parent refuses to vaccinate?

That's barbaric

So for those who'd keep unvaccinated children out of school or nursery 'unless there's a medical exemption', why, what's the difference? a child with a medical reason for not having vaccinations is just as likely to be a carrier and a 'danger' to other children as one whose parents don't have the medical exemption certificate so why not ban them too? If that's the reason?

Because there will be a lot less of them, obviously. Get rid of all the can't be bothereds and the anti big pharma nutballs and you'll only have the odd one who really can't be vaccinated, and they will be on board because they benefit more than anyone from the herd immunity.

If you don't want them, fine, but you don't get to send your child to a mainstream school, you don't get treatment if they catch the illnesses that vaccines protect us from, and you don't get any state benefits.

If you go down that route you also have to exclude smokers, people who drink alcohol, don't do enough exercise, are overweight, live in cities with high pollution, etc. etc. from treatment and benefits.

It would certainly solve many of the NHS' problems, but not sure it's the health service most people would choose.

I'm not sure why children should be singled out and forced to accept medical treatment or be excluded from state services. Personal autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics. That applies in the case of vaccinations just as it does to any other medical intervention.

Cause legitimate medical exemptions would be few and far between and they would rely on herd immunity

those who'd keep unvaccinated children out of school or nursery 'unless there's a medical exemption', why, what's the difference?
Because a child with medical exemption relies on herd immunity to not get ill.

Someone who's read a few scary things online and a few conspiracy theories is opening up other peoples kids to be killed.

My green parenting books specifically point out that all scientific evidence is to vax if theres no medical reason not to.

As it stands lots of wakko anti-vax people tend to trot out 'i didnt vax and my kid doesnt have any disease'... yes. Because other responsible people are keeping your kids safe. Thats why measles has been on the rise because some morons think theyre bloody special.

(Before i get slammed and misquoted, i have ZERO issues with non vax for medical reasons and when directed by trained medical staff. My issue is with the nutters.)

Whoops, because ^

My husband's mum was a massive anti vaxxer in the 70s/80s and as a result he's never been vaccinated against anything. We had a chat recently about him possibly going to ask for his missed vaccines. Any ideas on what he would need? I'm thinking it's important to protect our children from anything he could pick up in his healthcare job.

DS is 18 months old and up to date with his vaccines...MIL is very supportive of vaccinations now, but admits she was scared of them when DH was little.

I'm another that thinks that unvaccinated children (usual caveat for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical grounds) shouldn't be allowed within childcare and school settings. Not just mainstream either, I'd make it an across the board requirement for all educational establishments.

I think schools and nurseries should be able to refuse unvaccinated children.

However, practically, I you can only force parents to act in a certain way in very extreme circumstances.

It's one thing taking a child into the custody of the court (if that is the correct term) in direct life or death situations, e.g. refusing cancer treatment, clear neglect. It's another to start involving the court and social services in vaccinations, if for no other reason than they don't have the resources to deal with the cases they already have.

Fines only really work if people are prepared to pay them. There is a large anti vax lobby that would be very happy to pay the court bills of anybody challenging a fine - and then what do you do if the government wins? Send parents to prison?

If it was a legal requirement there wouldn't be a choice though, would there?

School = vaccines. No vaccines = home school and keeping the fuck away from most children for the majority of time. Well worth the wangst from the tinfoil hat wearing types.

Liara

No, because overweight people and drinkers aren't causing illnesses of other children.

We need to be really tough on this.

Personal autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics. That applies in the case of vaccinations just as it does to any other medical intervention

Not for children it isn't. They don't have personal autonomy in medical intervention.

Still reeling after the pp who said that most of the diseases we vaccinate against had "disappeared anyway" with better hygiene and hand washing!! Maybe there's just not enough soap to go round and that's why they're making a comeback?...

Soubriquet

It's not barbaric. I'd make it law that anybody refusing vaccines has to have private health insurance to cover any illnesses they get that everybody else has been vaccinated against. I think that's fair, to be quite honest.

I don't see why we should be paying to treat people who have illnesses that could have been prevented at an early age with a free vaccination. Yes, it might be punishing the kids but we have to take a tough stance on this.

I believe it should be compulsory and unvaccinated children should not be allowed to access nursery or schools.
My son's baby vaccinations were wiped out by intense chemo for childhood cancer (AML). There was the period during treatment and a 6 month period after treatment were he was at severe risk from unvaccinated children made more so by a weakened immune system. To these children measles or even
Chickenpox can have catastrophic effects. He is now 6 months in remission and thankfully able to re start all his baby immunisations. These children really are reliant on herd immunity.

And to those suggesting that children who are unvaccinated for medical reasons (as my son whose vaccinations were wiped out by painful and intense chemo) should also stay out of nursery and school need a reality check. Many children on my son's oncology ward were there for months at a time, often in isolation . To then suggest they can't return to some kind of normality and return to school or nursery is barbaric and naive.

Agree that the proposed Aussie approach sounds reasonable, with the caveat that local authorities should have to make some arrangement for unvaxxed school age children to receive a decent education - just not at the cost of the lives of children who cannot receive a vaccination for medical reasons.

This would have the effect of making it crystal damn clear that not vaxxing your child because you so cool and hippy, or because you "can't be arsed", is neglect - no other word for it. Not a "lifestyle choice", but neglect. (For those parents with medical reasons to avoid/delay, obviously this does not apply to you - but with the removal of that cohort of "couldn't be fucked" parents who would suddenly decide maybe they could be fucked, I'd imagine that a lot of tension would be removed from the discussions parents have with medical professionals.)

I feel perhaps even more strongly about this because my DP is one of those fuckwits taken in by antivax propaganda - its designed to be plausible and anxiety inducing to even very intelligent people who don't have the very specific medical background required to rebut it and point out the holes. (Because, sickeningly, antivax is a huge moneyspinner for some.) At the moment, DS is up to date with all but the latest one on the schedule, which we're still arguing over - at some point he will receive it. But it would be a fuckton easier if DP's ignorance wasn't effectively socially sanctioned by lack of any direct consequences.

I have a neighbour who is v antivax. Now that we have DD, he bombards me with articles about how the HPV vaccine is making girls sterile and how mercury is causing autism and how fluoride is causing a whole host of issues...