Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

In-laws have declined the vaccine... AIBU?

543 replies

HotGlueGun · 30/01/2021 11:14

So my in-laws (early 70s) have declined to have the vaccine. They are in our childcare bubble and so we see them regularly. They also ask us to do their shopping. WIBU to a) stop doing their shopping for them and b) reduce/ stop their contact with the kids? I'm really cross about but appreciate that they have free will and it's their choice. But resent having to do shopping for them... it's like they are happy for us to be at risk and aren't prepared to take reasonable steps to reduce their vulnerability and eliminate the risk for themselves/ the wider community.

OP posts:
Rupertbeartrousers · 31/01/2021 12:40

The pil have the right to refuse something that protects their health, the OP has the right not to enable the long term, self-imposed lockdown/shielding that they will need, long after their peers are protected and leading more normal lives.

Covid may never go away so is the OP going to forever worry that any visit from her kids could mean serious illness to them. They do need to choose; vaccine and more normal life or no vaccine and long term self-imposed restrictions (which indirectly burdens the OP with shopping and worry about exposing them to illness)

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 12:45

But none of this goes any way to gainsaying the point I was making about these choices we all make for ourselves. Some of them are morally wrong, for instance refusing the vaccine. Not because I say so (I am no moral arbiter!), but because refusing the vaccine harms other people.

Nope. My keeping both my own kidneys would be wrong, by this rationale. You don’t owe others to the extent that you must be prepared to harm your own health. Whether the vaccine does that isn’t the point, because we can only make that decision as individuals.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 12:45

Absolutely, but once the majority of the adult population have been vaccinated, unvaccinated people can no longer expect them to limit their lives to accommodate your choice.

Sure.

DWPmisery1972 · 31/01/2021 12:50

Why don’t you compromise as they have no access to the internet, and offer to do a regular online shop for them to have delivered/click and collect and they can pay you back in whichever way you arrange? There’s no need to burn bridges, what if you need emergency childcare? There’s always ways around these things.

nervalslobster · 31/01/2021 13:03

@AStudyinPink yes individual choice is a right, but so is my reaction to that choice. And I would want nothing to do with someone who refused a vaccination. I'm old enough to remember being told of my aunt nearly dying from diphtheria. My parents knew children who had died from polio and TB. My dad always remembered walking past the clinic on his way to work on the day polio vaccine became available - people with their children were queuing three times round the block at 7.30am waiting for it to open. These were people who knew the consequences of these diseases. So forgive me my disgust at those who refuse vaccines.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 13:10

So forgive me my disgust at those who refuse vaccines.

And forgive me my disgust at those who cast off loved ones for making their own healthcare decisions instead of letting you have your own way.

WombatChocolate · 31/01/2021 13:11

Individual healthcare choice might be a right, but a lot of the argument from ASTUDYINPINK seems very theoretical to me and based on the idea that humans are islands and exist on their own and not within families or bigger societies.

Perhaps those who subscribe to these views do exist much more as islands and haven’t got families or seen vulnerable adults with dementia who cannot make choices for themselves, or who have special needs or who have become so isolated from the world that they are not able to make rationale thought out and informed decisions.

There are grey areas with adults....special needs, severe mental health, dementia, significant isolation form information, coercive control....all areas where adults might struggle to make choices that they might make without these impairments. It is a grey area to decide when they can choose for themselves and when someone else might need to intervene. And before the stage where someone might need to intervene in the actual decision (and Ops PiL) aren’t at that stage I do t think, there might be an earlier stage where it is right for others to provide more information or explanation to help some vulnerable adults make their own decisions. This could include those with lesser mental illnesses, low level dementia, some educational needs, some levels of isolation which mean exclusion from information.

It is impossible to make a blanket statement that ALL adults regardless of circumstance should always make their own healthcare choices, by nature of them being an adult, or that it is wrong to provide information to them. In providing information, there is always the chance that those providing information try to persuade the adult in a certain direction and that information provided isn’t entirely neutral or balanced, but we are all subject to that issue in terms of information anyway. That is one reason why the state has a role to play in providing information in a time of crisis such as pandemic etc. But clearly some people struggle to access that information.

If my parents chose not to be vaccinated, Inwoukd be disappointed but I would accept it, if I thought they had understood the information and reached that conclusion. If I felt that they had been deprived of the information to actually weigh it and choose for themselves, then I would be concerned and not happy. I couldn’t simply say ‘they are adult it is their choice’ if I knew vital parts of the j formation hadn’t been avaialabke to them...that they were having to make choices blind. That wouldn’t be a caring response of a family member or society. That isn’t the same as interfering or pressuring, but providing the information.

I do worry that a number of people make choices all the time which will impact their lives, which they would t make if they knew more about the topic. Pensions are an example. In the end, people must choose, but having information allows them to choose i their best interests rather than blind.

Why would we want people to have to choose blind, rather than in an informed way? Asking them to choose about things which could significantly impact them, with no information seems like a form of abuse to be honest.

WombatChocolate · 31/01/2021 13:13

I think it’s all theoretical for ASTUDYINPINK anyway, and just a chance to disagree with everyone. It’s not really about real people and their health outcomes or Covid or society. It’s just a chance to disagree with most and push a theoretical point, when actually people are thinking about their families and loved ones and real situations.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 13:16

Individual healthcare choice might be a right, but a lot of the argument from ASTUDYINPINK seems very theoretical to me and based on the idea that humans are islands and exist on their own and not within families or bigger societies.

I don’t see how you reconcile the two points you just made. Either we get to make these decisions as individuals or we don’t. It’s not ‘theoretical’, because we are making them right now.

And I don’t want people to make uninformed decisions. I just know that they are allowed to.

inquietant · 31/01/2021 13:16

And I would want nothing to do with someone who refused a vaccination.

Someone who has this approach to their relatives is probably not much of a loss?

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 13:17

I think it’s all theoretical for ASTUDYINPINK anyway, and just a chance to disagree with everyone.

I genuinely don’t understand what you mean. They’re real vaccines, real arms. What do you believe is theoretical about it?

PerveenMistry · 31/01/2021 13:19

@AStudyinPink

So forgive me my disgust at those who refuse vaccines.

And forgive me my disgust at those who cast off loved ones for making their own healthcare decisions instead of letting you have your own way.

This is a deadly, global public health crisis.

Someone can refuse cancer treatment or the like without jeopardizing others. Not the same at all amid the pandemic.

PerveenMistry · 31/01/2021 13:20

@AStudyinPink

But none of this goes any way to gainsaying the point I was making about these choices we all make for ourselves. Some of them are morally wrong, for instance refusing the vaccine. Not because I say so (I am no moral arbiter!), but because refusing the vaccine harms other people.

Nope. My keeping both my own kidneys would be wrong, by this rationale. You don’t owe others to the extent that you must be prepared to harm your own health. Whether the vaccine does that isn’t the point, because we can only make that decision as individuals.

Your keeping both kidneys does not CAUSE life threatening illness in others. Come on.
AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 13:23

Someone can refuse cancer treatment or the like without jeopardizing others. Not the same at all amid the pandemic.

It’s exactly the same. We have the right to refuse medical treatments - full stop.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 13:23

Your keeping both kidneys does not CAUSE life threatening illness in others. Come on.

It fails to prevent it. Come on.

willloman · 31/01/2021 13:33

Have a conversation with them. Explain how you feel and maybe pick up some pamphlets/info from GP or proper medical advice re: vaccine. Would they refuse other medical intervention 'because their friend said so'?

pelosi · 31/01/2021 13:33

YANBU. They can’t reap the benefits of having family if they refuse to do their bit.

Say no to everything until they get the vaccine OP.

inquietant · 31/01/2021 13:42

Someone can refuse cancer treatment or the like without jeopardizing others. Not the same at all amid the pandemic.

Having the vaccine or not won't jeopardize others.

inquietant · 31/01/2021 13:44

@inquietant

Someone can refuse cancer treatment or the like without jeopardizing others. Not the same at all amid the pandemic.

Having the vaccine or not won't jeopardize others.

Until such point as they confirm it prevents onward transmission.
YeOldeTrout · 31/01/2021 13:50

I would want nothing to do with someone who refused a vaccination.

From the Chrissy Hynde school of thought, only her prejudice is how to view people who aren't vegans.

I want nothing to do with people like Chrissy Hynde. Is there some way we could publicly identify each other? Little purple triangles, maybe?

saraclara · 31/01/2021 14:07

People have the right to make their own decisions, but they have to take responsibility for them. Which means doing their own shopping. It's now not up to OP to protect them. They can't have it both ways.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 14:10

People have the right to make their own decisions, but they have to take responsibility for them. Which means doing their own shopping. It's now not up to OP to protect them. They can't have it both ways.

I agree.

Bahhhhhumbug · 31/01/2021 14:18

To those saying having vaccine or not doesn't impact on others only on the refusers, l disagree. If a significant proportion of the population refuse it, how will we ever get back to normal life without masks and social distancing and all cafes/restaurants being allowed to open etc.? There will still be people in grave danger from this virus wandering amongst us (i.e. the refusers) and no doubt the extreme left wingers will be wringing their hands and saying 'ah but its their choice, their body' etc so we still have to protect them and protect the NHS so need to still keep all the SD and PPE and lockdowns of various levels in place, because these people are still at risk.

They are stopping the rest of us from moving forward by choosing not to protect themselves.

AStudyinPink · 31/01/2021 14:28

There will still be people in grave danger from this virus wandering amongst us (i.e. the refusers) and no doubt the extreme left wingers will be wringing their hands and saying 'ah but its their choice, their body' etc so we still have to protect them and protect the NHS so need to still keep all the SD and PPE and lockdowns of various levels in place, because these people are still at risk.

Once there is a widely available vaccine I think people make that decision at their own risk. No need for further lockdowns to protect people who decide the risk of the virus is better for them than the risk of the vaccine.

inquietant · 31/01/2021 14:41

@saraclara

People have the right to make their own decisions, but they have to take responsibility for them. Which means doing their own shopping. It's now not up to OP to protect them. They can't have it both ways.
These choices will be made by individual families.

It isn't up to the op to protect them, but I wouldn't personally send them off to the shops right now while cases are ridiculously high, even if they've turned down the vaccine, as one dose only gives about 50% protection anyway, so I wouldn't be sending them even if they'd had it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.