to be cross my ds has measles because other parents didn't vaccinate their children

[snickersnack]

He's 11 months old, poor little thing . Fortunately he's going to be ok - he got off quite lightly, I think - but it was scary and he was really poorly for a day or so. Spent 10 hours in A&E yesterday while he had chest x-rays, blood tests, IV fluids etc. Now we're just waiting to see if his sister,who's 2, gets it - she's had one dose of MMR already so fingers crossed she's immune.

We live in an area where immunisation rates are among the lowest in the country. Now I have to go and tell all parents of the other babies he's met recently that their children might be at risk as well...

Fleximum - we do not know what DD's reaction to egg might be, she has never been exposed. She had an anaphylatic response to cow's milk so the hosiptal did blood test whoch came back suggesting whe was "highly" allergic to egg. Despite this our GP waid there was no possiblity of single jabs on the NHS and the hospital would be able to deal with it if DD had a severe reaction. TBH I felt the chance of that severe reaction were higher than the chance of her getting measles, and the effects of measles may well have been less severe than the effects of anaphylatic shock.

I do not know why there cannot be some flexiblity with the immunisation system. If your child is allergic to egg, or autism runs in your family, would it not be fairer to allow single jabs on the NHS? Would it not also increase vaccincation rates in such children?

Message withdrawn

Only on MN could a debate on vaccination segue into a discussion about dog poo...

Never in a million years would I leave dog poo lying around (presuming I had a dog), but it took me a long long long time to get DS2 vaccinated because I couldn't face him being covered in excema sores as his older brother had been following his vax. Many people agonise over the vaccination question, i.m.e.

I AM sorry that during the years my children were not MMR'd they put yours at risk, I truly am sorry, but never think it was a decision taken lightly.

I don't think you should blame others. It's not a fact that your child caught it from an unvaccinated child or that the low stats are the reason. You cannot prove this. Even if everyone was vaccinated there is still a risk of getting it. What if people with very sick children or parents of children who have had bad reactions to vaccinations decided they didn't want to take that risk? Would you be happy to be held responsible for a serious adverse vaccine reaction? Are you saying children should be forcably vaccinated?

I agree, Podmog

Podmog - Interesting. If that is true why do children with egg allergy still get sent to hospital to be observed while having the MMR? That is definitley still standard practice in my health authority.

Message withdrawn

How odd.
As recently as this monday a friend of mine was sent to the hospital to have her daughter's MMR. And her DD only has a suspected egg allergy.

I have seen measles at its worse..my sister had it when i was little..and unfortunately it proved fatal for her!
All my kids have been vacinated, i'm glad to say! And it does anger me when people believe that not giving the vacination only effects their own children, i'm afraid to say it effects everyone especially those children that are vunerable and who arent yet old enough for the jab.
The vacine was there for a reason...to stop this illness and it works, you have to weigh up what measles can do and unless you have seen this you will not understand, how bad it can be..i'm sorry but the vaccine is the only way to go..no proof of any connection with autism but there is proof of what measles, mumps and rubella can do and that the vaccine stops all that.

Look here

Who the heck takes this sort of thing lightly, pro-vac or not? That's just bonkers.

KerryMum, you don't need a referral from your GP to get singles done privately, you can just go & do it, he can't stop you. My DS had singles as he had measles at 10 months so I couldn't see the point in him being vaccinated against it when he'd already had it - he had Mumps & Rubella singles privately. I had MMR as a child but still caught measles from my DS - very nasty... Luckily DS wasn't that ill when he had it, not nearly as ill as I was. I wasn't remotely angry about unvaccinated children when he caught it, I just thought 'That's what I get for not being quick enough off the mark to stop him eating vomit in the playground...' [incompetent mother emoticon] Well, he has always been faster on his feet than me...

And to underline, I don't know anyone who does take it lightly.

Ah, rebelmum1 that makes it true then??

eating vomit.

That'll teach me to read MN when I'm drinking veg soup.

What a load of crap? Why is it then that measles was basically irradicated until all this autism stuff came up, i believe in what i see not what is written..i know ive made the right choice...as i said measles killed my sister and it was a horrible death and no very nice to watch..i was only 13 at the time. How many cases of mumps,measles,rubella do you see compared to before the MMR?

Sorry SueBaroo, far tmi...

Not saying anyone takes it lightly at all, motherhood plagued with hard decisions to make..i just think people should be shown the effects of measles/rubella on an unborn baby before they make a decision.

The thing is though that the decision to vaccinate must be made on an analysis of risk/benefit ratio. Without proper (impartial) research into both risk and benefit it is impossible to say who should be excluded from vaccination programmes for medical reasons.

Currently the risk of the diseases is exaggerated whilst no effort is being made to identify children at risk from adverse events. Also the efficacy of vaccines themselves needs further examination. Why the stubborn head in the sand refusal of the government to address these issues? It is simply not good enough.

Bumdiddley said;

"Wasn't Wakefield discreditted (sp)AGES ago??
Conflict of interest etc?"

The simple answer to this is no.

Dr Wakefield has been the victim of a cynical smear campaign. Much attempt has been made to come up with charges of conflict of interest/unethical research but so far the case for the prosecution at the GMC trial is looking very weak. None of Dr Wakefield's patients or their parents have complained, indeed many of them have been demonstrating outside the GMC to show their support for him and his collegues.

The science behind his 1998 (peer reviewed) Lancet paper stands and has not been discredited, much of it has been replicated by other researchers.

Dr Wakefield is continuing his work at Thoughtful House in the US. The website is well worth a read particularly the section entitled 'conference presentations' found in the research section.

written by Dr Wakefield

Also worth a read although it is very long is Martin Walker's summary of the GMC hearing, her at the Cryshame website.

'tis long but well written and quite funny in places (dark humour)

BITCAT - so sorry to read about your sister

thebecster

Oh, and as I haven't said, I think the Op is BslightlyU, but it's entirely understandable to be cross when your baby is poorly.

But I still believe 100% in parental choice when it comes to vaccination. Parents are the ones who have to pick up the pieces - of childhood illness complications or vaccination side effects.

If they are making an informed decision then showing them scary pictures should not affect that choice.
Does this work both ways? can we insist that all those saying the MMR is 100% perfect be required to view the damage done?

Has the MMR killed anyone yet?