Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think perhaps schools should insist on vaccinations.

388 replies

Lovestonap · 02/03/2019 00:16

Good animal boarding kennels etc will not take animals without their vaccinations up to date.
Should our schools be able to insist on a completed course of childhood vaccinations (up to age appropriate) before giving a space at a school? Obviously children who are unable to be vaccinated would have a medical exemption certificate. I think this would be a good idea, but then I'm wondering if this is a nanny state too far thing. Probably implications for human rights I haven't considered.

OP posts:
Dutch1e · 02/03/2019 17:14

MitziK sorry, I didn't really answer your question... in a country where rickets are coming back, can we really be sure a dose of Vit A isn't appropriate? I've never seen a child tested for the deficiency before a jab, have you?

Monsan44 · 02/03/2019 17:19

@Punxsutawney A vaccine, just like a severe virus, constitutes an assault on the immune system. And just like a particularly nasty virus, a vaccine can trigger or worsen conditions where there is already an underlying predisposition. And yes that includes neurodevelopmental conditions. But something else could trigger it as well.

MitziK · 02/03/2019 17:19

I'm pretty sure that vitamin A supplementation isn't appropriate in a country where rickets is coming back.

Rickets isn't caused by Vitamin A deficiency. It's caused by Vitamin D deficiency - and there is a recommendation to supplement that in the UK.

Dutch1e · 02/03/2019 17:22

MitziK yes, rickets is caused by Vit D deficiency, you're right. I was using it as a general point about vitamin deficiencies, as well as musing on how I've never seen anyone tested for a Vit A deficiency before a jab (or tested for anything else that might be relevant to that person's health)

Monsan44 · 02/03/2019 17:28

@KissingInTheRain there is no freedom of choice if you make access to schooling contingent on vaccination, which is what this thread proposes. Neither is there freedom of choice if drug companies phase out single vaccines as an alternative to MMR (which is what they have done in the case of the mumps vaccine). And there is no informed consent if media campaigns saying "this vaccine in completely safe" persist. Shades of grey, not black and white.

OlennasWimple · 02/03/2019 17:33

We have moved three times overseas and each time have had to show up to date immunisations as required locally in order to register at schools. (And, in one place, in order for kids to attend summer camp and other extracurricular activities)

Punxsutawney · 02/03/2019 17:34

Well Monsan, I truly believe that a vaccine didn't cause my sons ASD. I don't know what caused it, I may be wrong but I think that he was born that way. There were signs from a very young age. We chose not to go for a diagnosis as he coped whilst he was younger. He has struggled as a teenager so we have decided now that getting a diagnosis is the best way to go.

His autistic behaviour just seems like part of him and it always has been. I have certainly struggled at times over the few months whilst he has been on the autism pathway. But I don't feel any guilt for having him immunised.

DumpTrump · 02/03/2019 17:54

YANBU. I think state schools should require that all children are vaccinated unless there is a medical reason not to.

When we moved to the US my children had to be revaccinated before they were allowed to start school. Even though they'd had all their childhood vaccines in the UK they had to have a lot of them repeated. They had both had their pre-school boosters in the UK shortly before their 4th birthday and the state we were in required them to be given on or after their fourth birthday. There was no leeway with this. They even had to have the chicken pox vaccine despite both having had chicken pox!

Firstworddinosaur · 02/03/2019 17:55

I've never believed in mandatory vaccination for school entry before. But hearing about measles cases on the rise I'm reconsidering. For the sake of those children that can't have the vaccines for medical reasons.

MitziK · 02/03/2019 18:20

I've been tested for Vitamin D deficiency. Because I had symptoms of osteomalacia. I needed high dose supplementation - which wouldn't have been prescribed to me without the test to confirm the deficiency. Most people in the UK (as a result of epidemiological research) have been found to have a milder deficiency/suboptimal levels and therefore the recommendation is to proactively supplement at a much lower level and therefore stop the deficiencies before they cause clinical symptoms. It's also being looked into as a potential cause of MS, as research has found a higher incidence in people who have low levels/live in places where the weather is worse/have lifestyle factors that make the sun an unlikely source.

Iron supplementation is only prescribed when a FBC has established that somebody has anaemia. Most people (as found through collating results of all the blood tests performed) do not, but some groups have been found to have a higher incidence (pregnant women, those with heavy periods, those with eating disorders, for example), so they are recommended to try to improve their diet, but will be prescribed supplements if necessary. Previously, the role iron played in anaemia, the fact that pregnant women tend towards anaemia and that it's associated with post partum haemorrhage incidence was found through research.

All women (thanks to that epidemiological research) who are thinking of becoming pregnant or are pregnant are recommended to supplement with 400mcg folic acid to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects - a cause and dosage established through the use of large scale epidemiological research. They don't test first because the data suggests that most women need to do it and it doesn't cause harm to have more (unlike vitamin A).

Epidemiological research has established that it is good practice when treating somebody admitted to hospital but suspected of abusing alcohol long term with a drip containing Pabrinex, a combination of vitamins (C and B1,2,3 & 6) that have been established (through research) to be almost universally deficient in people who abuse alcohol and are associated with various diseases. It's therefore not essential to test first, as the alcoholism is evidence enough to make it sensible to supplement in any case (and again, if they aren't deficient, all they'll do is excrete the excess with no harm done).

Research has also established that serum retinol levels do not correlate with symptoms of vitamin A deficiency unless they are extremely high or low here. The guidance is to look at exacerbating factors and seek advice from specialist teams, rather than supplement more than the level provided in Healthy Start Vitamins - and formula is supplemented in the UK exactly because it's been found to reduce the incidence in bottle fed babies.

We don't insist that babies are tested for Vitamin A deficiency before being given formula rather than a bottle of semi skimmed. We expect to give them formula if breast milk isn't an option. We don't supplement everybody because too high an intake is equally risky (more so in terms of teratogenicity).

I think you're reading too much into it/not taking into consideration that not having personally experienced having tests prior to supplementation doesn't mean it doesn't happen (or it does), so it doesn't really help support anything but that public medicine works.

KissingInTheRain · 02/03/2019 18:28

there is no freedom of choice if you make access to schooling contingent on vaccination, which is what this thread proposes. Neither is there freedom of choice if drug companies phase out single vaccines as an alternative to MMR (which is what they have done in the case of the mumps vaccine). And there is no informed consent if media campaigns saying "this vaccine in completely safe" persist.

Absolute rubbish. The first one isn’t a denial of choice, it’s a denial of dangerous freeloading selfishness. The second one is a matter of economics: there are no good arguments for single vaccines and many against them, so governments don’t include them in schedules, so companies don’t make them. No campaigns claim 100% safety - though vaccines are incredibly safe, especially when compared to what they protect against.

Dutch1e · 02/03/2019 18:32

@MitziK like I said a couple of pages ago, my point was about pre-jab screening.

Screening for vitamin deficiency is one. Screening for the immune wonkiness that that man had, turning the polio vaccine into live polio is another.
Screening for possible allergic reactions is a third.

Have you, or your kids, been screened for anything before receiving a vaccine?

If not, it seems shaky to me to support the idea of mandatory vaccines just to enrol in school.

MitziK · 02/03/2019 18:54

Yes. I was prescreened for MMR because I had got a job in a hospital and I was too old to have had MMR. Had it come up that I had not got immunity to all three, I'd have had to receive the vaccine. As people who are anti vaccinations don't tend to like taking their children into hospital with a broken wrist to end up with them catching Measles from the staff.

I was also prescreened for TB vaccination. That's how they know I have latent TB - and was immediately precluded from working in clinics. Nobody likes a member of hospital staff potentially killing them. If I'd have been working in a clinical setting or a piercing/tattoo parlour, I'd have to be screened/vaccinated against hepatitis, too.

When you have a flu vaccination, you have to stay there for a while in case of an allergic reaction (as they already have the appropriate treatment in situ as a condition of providing the vaccines). Meant both of us spent over 45 minutes in a pharmacist.

You get asked if you have any allergies prior to being prescribed antibiotics and when you pick them up, they ask 'have you taken these before/do you have any allergies?'. They also ask if you have asthma if you're buying or being prescribed anything containing Ibuprofen. I can't have one of the standard antibiotics for latent TB because I already know I'm allergic to that one in particular (and a lot of other ones). When I have my first dose of the alternative treatments, I have to take them in hospital and wait because of the potential for allergies.

Dutch1e · 02/03/2019 20:14

MitziK fair enough. If you're comfortable there are enough pre-jab checks then I guess our chat is done.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot · 02/03/2019 20:38

"Like I said, the only thing that'll change attitudes are conditions to receive a free service/money or deaths. Lots of them."

Agree. I suspect a large measles outbreak is probably the most likely.

But I'd support a change to child-linked benefits so they were not payable to the unimmunised (except for those with medical exemption or following an endorsed catch-up programme) - essentially the Aussie model.

I do not support chipping away at a child's right to a decent education. No matter how wrong-headed their parents.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 02/03/2019 21:23

Simple solution, have schools for those that can prove vaccination and schools for the 'infectious'/anti-vaxxers. It wont take long for those ignorant parents to learn how deadly ignoring modern medicine is.

Let evolution weed out stupidity.

TrojanWhore · 02/03/2019 21:28

That's just not fair on the DC and their right to education (those with gullible parents probably need it most) Not to mention an admin nightmare in providing the right number of places of the right type.

Hit the buggers in the pocket instead. Simpler, and probably way more effective.

Vinorosso74 · 02/03/2019 21:36

I am pro vaccination but I think stopping unvaccinated kids from attending school is wrong. It's not a black and white topic. If those kids are all home schooled the potential bubble of being amongst antivaxxers is worrying-would they believe that and not vaccinate their own children? Who knows? I just don't feel it's right. Obviously there is the concern for kids who can't be vaccinated and protecting them but I think in most areas of the UK herd immunity would be enough to protect them.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 02/03/2019 22:04

I wonder could the NHS provide vaccinations in school for those whose parents have neglected them. Essentially a safeguarding issue.

Monsan44 · 02/03/2019 22:08

@KissingInTheRain there are no good arguments for single vaccines and many against them, so governments don’t include them in schedules, so companies don’t make them. Really?

KissingInTheRain · 02/03/2019 22:13

Yes, really.

Monsan44 · 02/03/2019 22:18

@Lovestonap there can be no straightforward comparison between medical and ethical practices regarding animals and human beings, because the risk of harm to an animal is not the same as risk of harm to children. Otherwise we would be "putting down" every child that develops a chronic disease.

JassyRadlett · 02/03/2019 22:21

I am pro vaccination but I think stopping unvaccinated kids from attending school is wrong. It's not a black and white topic. If those kids are all home schooled the potential bubble of being amongst antivaxxers is worrying-would they believe that and not vaccinate their own children? Who knows? I just don't feel it's right. Obviously there is the concern for kids who can't be vaccinated and protecting them but I think in most areas of the UK herd immunity would be enough to protect them.

I agree it’s a horrible case of competing rights and protections. As you say - and I agreed earlier in the thread, right now the risks are reasonably controlled due to herd immunity (but not eradicated, and there are some horrible cases of children too young or too unwell to be vaccinated who have become very ill due to disease breakthroughs).

But I do think we need to consider now what we should do if immunisation rates drop further. They’re already below what is considered optimal for herd immunity (see the head of NHS England’s comments today) - what if they drop further due to the liars and the conspiracy theorists? What do we do as a society then, to balance the rights and protections of two groups that are totally at odds with each other?

My instinct is that the group who have no choice and are already relatively more vulnerable should have their access to education prioritised, but it’s not an easy one.

Monsan44 · 02/03/2019 22:21

@Dutch1e thank you for these points.

MumUnderTheMoon · 02/03/2019 22:28

I completely agree with this. Not vaccinating a child and then relying on the fact that the rest of us do to protect your child is entirely selfish. People are able to be blasé about it only because no one remembers how bad the measles and other diseases were.