not letting my 13-year old DD have the cervical cancer jab?

[IloveJudgeJudy]

It's now crunch time. I have a letter and form from school that I have to sign to allow my 13-year old DD have the three cervical cancer jabs. The form HAS TO be in tomorrow, one way or the other.

Last year when this vaccination came in I was all for it. BUT I have been reading up a bit more about it and have read that it only covers 70% of cervical cancers, far fewer people are affected by cervical cancers than by, for example, lung cancer or heart disease. I have also read, but I am not sure how true it is, that some girls have had quite severe adverse reactions to the vaccination.

So, AIBU to stop my daughter having these jabs?

Riven - yes of course it always comes down to individual choice and it depends on the risks and what you as an individual are prepared to accept on that basis.

But those people that hear a (false) scare story or rumour about side-effects and then choose to ignore tha actual data and to dismiss the possibility of looking into the actual risk:benefit are not really 'weighing' anything up, they are acting irrationally. It is important that balanced facts are used by individuals in making their individual decision, not heresay or the unfortunate experience of one individual over and above the positive experiences of thousands or millions of others.

YABVU!
How would you feel if she got cervical cancer one day? This jab is a life-saver, I'm shocked that people would opt out of it. Get you facts, do some research, look at the evidence, then decide. But don't play russian roulette with your DD's life.

I have wandered back having had a nice evening out and reminded myself that people forget on here that they are talking to real people in real situations where this is not hypothetical...

I would never in a million years tell anyone not to have a vaccination.
But i find it frustrating that my history of very bad genetic responses to vaccines is mention as scaremongering or non-scientific.

My gripe with the 'science is the only valued view' line is that science responds to the data it choses to investigate.
Maybe being sarcastic about scientists was "beneath me" ( although frankly why anyone has a view on what my standard ofresponse is or should be seems a bit ) but I have had to sit in many a room with scientist and medical people who wish to tell me that things which I know to be true are not.
It is absoloutely accepted that the views of a parent should be dismissed. Anecdotal eveidence is deemed nonsense and inconvenient things are viewed with suspicion.
I don't believe this is an evil conspiracy but human nature. And I think it is actually understandable.
When my young neice had a massive seizure imediately after one of her jabs the nurse was repeatedly telling my brotherthat the seizure was unrelated to the jab - even as she was being tended to. I have no doubtthatthe nurse believed it too - but it seemed oddly defensive and her annoyance with my brother added to that. I have often found Doctors get aggressive with me, as if my believeing something different, something about my own son, is a criticism of them.

My son was damaged permanently by vaccination. Initially I was assured there was nothing wrong with him, then that the vaccine was not involved, then that the therapy I wanted to try would not work, then when it did work that it must have been something else.
Subsequently my GP and Paed have admitted privately that we should be cautious re vaccination but will not put this on my DCs records as it is a 'difficult issue'

I am not a luddite. I am not anti-vaccine.
But my family have a bad history of reaction. I think it would serve the whole population much better if people like me, if children like mine, were investigated so that why some people/some children are susceptible was understood - rather than having endless discussions where each side bats each other and I get called an idiot or a scaremonger in the cross fire. The fav characiture is off some dimwit yuppie type deciding on vaccination over a latte and a crystal healing. Its cheap and smug.

More difficult is that my child is discussed as the acceptable risk associated with vaccines and yetthe help and support is minimal.

My son was a walking, talking, charming little darling. That boy is gone now and whilst my son remains one of my loves I will have to care for him til I die.
It is very hard to read these thread ( that is why I avoid 'vaccination') when people are so dismissive of the fact that whilst a risk maybe very small its consequences are life altering.

Please don't misunderstand me. I actually enjoy some of the discussions around vaccination. And I really really do respect other people views andthose who are passionate about vaccination. But many people who are genuinely concerned about vaccination, and who research in earnest and seek to do what is right by their children get sneered at too often and it makes me sad. Thats all really

BTW. I will not be ignoring any responses. I just wish to say my thing and then properly hide this thread. I should have done it last time. I hope my comments are not offensive to anyone. i am not responding to any particular poster.

Merry christmas

I think a big part, a big perhaps subconscious part of objections to this vaccinations is that it involves very young girls, most of whom are not sexually active (and the parents of the rest think that they are not) being given a vaccination to protect them against something they are only going to get through sexual activity. I think that is a hard thought for a lot of people.

Everyone has to make their own choices about all vaccinations; I am not keen on DS having the swine flu vaccine for example; although he is technically in an at risk group, he is fit and healthy and latest stats say anything up to a third of children have already had swine flu without their parents even knowing it. Swine flu doesn't strike me as a big enough potential threat to be worth the risk of the vaccine. Cervical cancer is completely different.

The sad fact is that I guess for every case like pagwatch, there is another (if not here then certainly in less wealthy countries) case where a child dies of a disease that could have been prevented if only they had been vaccinated.

I think that is why I feel pationately that the only rational way for one to decide is to look at the big picture, not just individual cases.

But of course all the science in the world can't help those families who have had a bad experience. Unfortunately, no-one has a crystal ball. I myself am going through the horrible process of trying to decide whether to have the SF vaccine (while I'm pregnant), and wading through the data, because unfortunately, in this case, there really isn't any experience to draw from.

I know that if I have it and my baby is affected, I will have to live with the regret, but if I don't, and I get SF and my baby dies, I will have to live with, or if I die, my DD will have to grow up without a mother.

So I do not say any of my comments lightly - I wish I did have a crystal ball, but I don't- all I have is the evidence (or in this case, severe lack of it).

TheMightyToosh wrote "The sad fact of the matter is that some conditions don't yet have perfect treatments (most conditions actually"

It's also the case that whenever children are involved, the variables (body size, etc, etc) make the prescribing of drugs much more dangerous and 'experimental'

Studies are also more difficult, if not impossible, when very rare diseases are involved, because samples amount to a few dozen in the whole population, sometimes.

PagwatchI think it is hard when reading your post to ignore what you said.

I am not dismissing your son's reaction which is tragic. I know nothing about your neice but do wonder if the seizure was a reaction to the needle and experience rather than the vaccine itself- maybe she would have had a seizure if she had been injected with anything?

The point is, that you get idiosyncratic responses to all drugs and treatments, no matter how hard you try to prevent this through extensive testing; there is always going to be somebody who reacts in a unique way.

I had such a reaction to drugs/herbal medicine I was taking. No one knew why, and it was a chance reaction. Having said that, I recovered, and the drugs/herbs worked, so I do and would recommend the treatment I had to others as long as they knew the risks.

You cannot predict every single reaction to a drug or treatment.

I am now taking some drugs which have a risk associated after a certain length of time. I know the stats, and I know that the current quality of life I have is better for taking the drugs (HRT). I may in time regret my decision, but I can only goon the advice of my dr and the level of risk I am willing to take.

This applies to anyone doing anything, from crossing the road, driving a car, playing a sport or whatever.

Nothing in ife is risk-free but you need to assess the odds. In this case, of the vaccine, the odds seem to be in favour of having it.

I think that Pagwatch's experience is valid as an argument not to have vaccines, but only to her.

The point has been made repeatedly that vague "bad" stories about vaccines are not legitimate scientific facts on which a decision can be made. Similarly, many people have pointed out that just because something may have happened to one child, does not mean it will happen to another child and that therefore a few isolated cases are not a reason to refuse vaccinations for all.

If I was Pagwatch, with a family history of weird reactions to vaccines, of course I wouldn't allow any DDs to have the vaccine. But there would be good, if anecdotal, evidence to suggest this does not work for people with my genetic make up etc etc. My grandmother had bunions, my father has bunions, I have bunions - it's not a huge stretch to assume that there's a very good chance that my children will have bunions. Ditto on the vaccine. But just because I have bunions, is not a reason to assume that everyone else is going to have them too.

I guess what I'm trying to say that I think Pagwatch has good reason for her decision but I'm still not convinced about the other reasons that have been highlighted on this thread.

I'm new to mumsnet but had to post when I saw this thread. I've just had a radical hysterectomy because of cervical cancer. I'm 30, and desperately wanted more children. I have never missed, or even been late for a smear test, but still got hit by this disease.

Yes, I have now been cured, but it has been awful, and my life is irrevocably altered.

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in young women (after skin cancer). You don't have to be promiscuous to get HPV, you could as easily get it from a long term partner as a one night stand. And condoms are not properly effective against it because it is transmitted by skin to skin contact and not just bodily fluids.

The scientific evidence shows that the risk of any problems from the jab is incredibly small. The hard fact is that nearly 3000 women get diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and they are not all as lucky as me in catching it early enough to be cured.

shanti this is probably the best and most worthwhile post here.
I hope you continue to be okay. You have had a rough time.
I hope everyone else reads your post.

www.eveappeal.org.uk/gynaecological-cancers/cervical-cancer/risk-factors.aspx

more info about risk factors and transmission.

Sorry to read that, shantishanti. 20 years ago when I was leaving my job in Sussex to travel north to a new position one of my colleagues was also leaving our department (to go from Computing Services to be a lecturer).

It was the first time she had been back in 8 months after having a smear, then a few days later, a biopsy and then full treatment for CC which all kicked off a few days before the start of the Christmas 1988 break.

Distressing, but like you, she was fortunate to have had it detected and to come through it. Many people 'suffer in silence' as there are often no outward signs, and the effects are dire. Can only wish you stay well.

PP wrote "You cannot predict every single reaction to a drug or treatment."

Well said! I remember being told to have a lie down as I was white as a sheet after giving blood (second time I had given blood with a group from work, allowed an hour or two off to do so).

While I was 'dozing' I heard one nurse ask another if I was dead and should she get a sheet to cover me !?!

Didn't know I looked 'so' bad, but there you go. On the way out, one nurse took me to one side and suggested that as they had a note of my being pale first time as well, it may be better for me not to come again as they were concerned about me.

I have no aversion to needles, and certainly didn't faint, and in all other ways feel 'normal' and healthy, but clearly there's something peculiar about me to cause that effect...

OP here. Well, in the end my daughter did have the jab today. I spoke to many people before we decided that she would.

My daughter just has a sore arm. Evidently, one girl fainted, but nothing else happened (thankfully).

Thank you all for your comments and advice. They were all much appreciated, especially the amount of time and effort some of you put into your replies.

well you made an informed decision, (and fwiw i think the right one.)