Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not expect my dr to give me such a hard time over vaccinations

101 replies

squimlet · 21/02/2008 10:54

So we have decided to delay giving dd her mmr vaccinations. she has glue ear and persistant coughs and colds and we have decided to delay giving it to her till she is up and running a bit better - even it thats a few years down the line.
So this morning my dr started giving me a hard time over it saying that she will catch this that and the other and then she will be infertile and her children might be brain damaged and do I want that on my concience. How would that make me feel knowing it was my fault etc etc.
I just nodded and smiled but Oh god inside I was boiling with rage. I so wanted to tell him to bugger off but refrained.

OP posts:
Lyra75 · 22/02/2008 09:59

YANBU - your GP's manner sounds out of order and his communication skills definitely need revisiting.

But to those who have suggested that the reason GPs push MMR is because they are paid for it - I haven't yet come across a colleague (I work in the health service) where that is the case. We get paid for everything we do - it's the way general practice works, unfortunately in my opinion, but none the less it is the way it works. There are targets for how quickly we see people, checking BP, smears, checking weight, seeing patients with all sorts of chronic diseases, even giving questionnaire to those with depression - the vast majority of what is done in General practice has some sort of financial amount attached to it. Most GPs can't hold that in their head all the time and most resent the way the system works.

When a GP is being rude and/or unreasonable it's not usually for financial reward - just cause they are being rude and/or unreasonable!

yurt1 · 22/02/2008 10:04

I haven't vaccinated ds2 and ds3 at all and have never been given a hard time over it.

When ds3 was born my HV did ask me if I wanted ds2 to get the baby jabs as he was older now but I said no and that was it.

Ask the doctor to provide you with references to each claim - especially the infertile one! (Mumps is usually very mild in a child- and infertility is a minute risk, in fact you could ask your doc why they even vaccinate against mumps as I don't get the logic at all).

Blueskythinker · 22/02/2008 10:06

Change your doctor to someone you can have a constructive relationship with.

doggiesayswoof · 22/02/2008 10:11

Christ, who'd be a GP?

YANBU to object to his manner. Patronising medics are right up there among my least favourite things. His communication skills sound poor to say the least.

But to suggest that vaccinations are pushed on parents to meet targets/for financial reward is below the belt. I am sure most HCPs want children to be vaccinated because they genuinely believe it's the best thing for their health.

It's a lose/lose situation really - can you imagine the criticism GPs would get if they didn't try and make parents aware of the risks involved in not vaccinating?

doggiesayswoof · 22/02/2008 10:12

Lyra75 I agree about most GPs disagreeing with the system wrt to targets.

Cam · 22/02/2008 10:14

My GP recommended that we don't give dd the mmr as she showed a sensitivity to egg the first time she ate it (red raised area around mouth).

He said if you really want her to have the jab she would have to be given it in hospital.

This was after she had been tested for genuine allergy to egg by paediatrician and had a negative result.

We took his advice and didn't go for it (all other childhood jabs given)

dal21 · 22/02/2008 10:16

only read OP.

am sorry - but tend to agree with your doctor. could you imagine if your dd caught something but had a strong enough immune system to beat it. Passed it onto another baby whose immune system wasnt strong enough and god forbid the outcome is not favourable??

This is the reason jabs are given - these diseases can kill other children. If your doc gave the advice that despite all the other colds etc, the jab should be given, I would have listened.

yurt1 · 22/02/2008 10:20

squimlet hasn't said she's not vaccinating. She told her GP that she wants to vaccinate her dd when she's 100% well. Which is entirely reasonable. She didn't need a lecture.

tiredemma · 22/02/2008 10:25

To suggest that a GP is promoting the MMR vaccine for financial gain alone is nothing short of ludicrous.

Cam · 22/02/2008 10:25

I wouldn't dream of allowing my child to have any jabs if unwell, nor would I have any myself if unwell.
We all had thyphoid and Hep A in November before going to Africa and the practice nurse was very thorough with regard to checking that none of us were unwell before giving the jabs.

Op's GP sounds bonkers

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 10:48

I think that you're making a sensible decision and if the MMR wasn't so controversial and the gov wasn't so concerned about the drop in herd immunity they would probably think the GP would be less averse to you waiting for a better developed immune system. Although probably months not years. GP's have made it a bit of a battleground my dd had pneumonia and I chose to hang fire for better health too. And yes absolutely at the end of the day you know your child and it is your decision.

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 10:53

I don't think we are very far away from making vaccinations compulsory like it is in the US. Who are incidentally paying out billions to vaccine damaged children.

Original poster
squimlet · 22/02/2008 11:46

if I remeber rightly I was vaccinated against rubella when I was about 16. I was under the impression that that protected myself and my children, so to some extent both children are protected iyswim.
Sorry if I have got my facts wrong with that btw

OP posts:
rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 11:56

I'm not sure if it passes on to your children, but it's only a risk if you get rubella when you are pregnant. I think they test that you have protection. The reason they give it to children is to protect pregnant women. Risks are small because most women now have the vax

needmorecoffee · 22/02/2008 12:09

Our GP played the 'brain damage' card with dd. But I was able to say 'actually, we're ahead there, she's already brain damaged' which shut him up pronto.
They should allow parents to make decisions and not hassle them so they get their bonus.

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 12:25

That isn't how they see it I'm afraid they have the nations whole health in mind not each individual child. It's a more of a social policy. They are imho over-zealous and over emotional about it. be confident that you are making the right decision for your child after all we are all different and unique and you know your child and will know when they are strong and well and better to withstand a tripple vaccine.

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 12:29

I think there is a bigger agenda, they want everyone else to think that your child is a threat to their children, even though others are vaccinated so they can sway public thinking to accept compulsory vaccination. But that's just my oppinion. It's like you suddenly hear how chickenpox is a killer before the vaccine is introduced. I don't think there aren't risks but I do think they are over-egged.

Cam · 22/02/2008 13:05

2 words:

Propaganda
Targets

dizietsma · 22/02/2008 13:10

What I can't understand is everyone talking about the horrors of a measles outbreak. I do understand that rarely kids with measles can be very ill from the disease. Thing is, when I was a little girl in the not so distant 80's, everyone got measles and it was viewed as a common, if inconvenient and irritating, childhood illness. Not only did I have a dose of measles, but I also had rubella. I'm not infertile, my DD is not brain damaged and I still had a very robust immunity to rubella when I weas tested in pregnancy.

My question is, is a severe case of measles any more damaging than a severe case of 'flu? Frankly, I doubt it.

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 13:18

Rubella doesn't make you infertile does it? I thought it just put a pregnant woman at risk of miscarrying? It's otherwise harmless and overwith in a couple of days.

girlfrommars · 22/02/2008 13:37

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy she may miscarry or the child could be born with congenital rubella syndrome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rubella

bitofadramaqueen · 22/02/2008 13:37

According to the NHS disietsma severe measles can kill. here.

bitofadramaqueen · 22/02/2008 13:38

sorry, dizietsma

doggiesayswoof · 22/02/2008 13:43

Mmm well flu can kill too. I think we are all totally blase about "childhood" illnesses because they are more or less out of the population BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS

I am not a GP and I don't necessarily think that all children should be vaccinated (and I certainly don't think they should be made compulsory). It just bugs me when these discussions always get round to 'measles mumps and rubella are not serious illnesses anyway etc etc'

I don't accept that I'm afraid.

rebelmum1 · 22/02/2008 13:53

I concur but the seriousness is often overstated. This is wrong. A parent who chooses to postpone a vaccine due to the ill health of her child should not be made to feel that death is imminent. There needs to be a sense of perspective. Thanks to vaccinations there is only a 1 in 6,600 chance(and that is taking into account nunber of worldwide deaths including developing countries)of dying from measles so the parent shouldn't be made to feel as though they are putting their child in immediate danger.