Article in the Times health supplement about parents who put their children forward for vaccine trials

[Socci]

Message withdrawn

i know measles can be a very serious disease, but i was so pleased that i had measles, mumps and rubella naturally as a child, as i could pass on that immunity to my ds for the first year of his life. Generations to come will not have the luxury of this natural protection for infants. Swings and roundabouts really. This idea that not vaccinating puts other children ar risk is a bit of a red herring i think. I think there aren't many parents who don't vaccinate, and those who dson't usually have a bloody good reason why not - we don't actually want to blithely put our children [or other children] ar risk from disease, for the sake of some whimsy. For me personally i have to reassess my decision every day, and keep researching and researching, to do the best for my son. there are some children [ a minority] for whom vaccinations may be dangerous, and for others to claim that those children should also be vaccinated, regardless of the outcome, for the greater good, rather rankles me.

Message withdrawn

Also depends on individual doctors. A lot of doctors would advise me to get ds2 and ds3 vaccinated, but also there are those who would advise me NOT to vacinate given our family history, or only give certain jabs. It's not an exact science. Whether jabbing or not is right for an individual comes down to an opinion. An ex mumsnetter was given a hard time for not vaccinating her ds- who had been repeatedly ill (meningitis IIRC). She refused as she didn't feel he was well enough, and was given a hard time. When she finally saw an immunologist he told her that had she given her son live polio jab he would have been quite likely to die. She's ended up not jabbing her other children (confidence shot). When advising on an individual case a doctor would be considering the individual child though, not the population.

People who vaccinate don't do so purely for altruistic reasons. I doubt other people's kids comes into it- they vaccinate because they think it is the best way to protect their child. Fair enough, it's all any of us do.

Message withdrawn

i have to say i think there are few people who would vaccinate for altruistic reasons. Most people vaccinate because they think it is the best thing for their child. Most people who don't vaccinate do so because they think it is the best thing for their child. so I think the greater good of society argument is disingenuous actually.

Not disingenous for me, Ruty. I really am somebody who does things, at least in part, because of the social good.

Shocking, I know, but some of us really do have a social conscience....

what zebra- am I reading this right- you are saying that you would vaccinate your child even if you believed your child would be likely to end up never living independently as a result? I don't believe you.

I am saying that "the better social good" would be a factor in my decision about what to do -- even if I had a family history like yours, JJ. The idea that there is such a thing as "the greater good of society" is not a "disingenous" ideal at all... for me. It would be almost as important to me as what was actually in the best interests of my individual child.

I hope I'm not the only person who actually thinks that way.

Maybe it's the American or simply Methodist-coloured background I was raised in.

Maybe it's because you have no idea what severe autism is like. Or maybe it's because you haven't read Hornig et al.

I don't believe for one moment that you would vaccinate if you thought it was likely that your child was become severely autistic as a result. No way.

Message withdrawn

The 'greater good of society' argument should hold water - having our children vaccinated when we can protects those who can't be vaccinated because they have, for example, compromised immune systems. So if your child is healthy and there's no family history that makes you concerned about the effect of vaccinations on your child, it is the 'right' thing to do.

Having said all that, I haven't MMRd ds and haven't got round to single jabs yet, so I'm a hypocrite. Will make the call re single jabs today, I think. This thread has reminded me that I do have a responsibilty to other children as well, especially those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

I really don't buy the 'vaccinations don't work anyway' line. They do. We have boosters because not every single child will be immune following their first set of jabs because, just like every other medicine, vaccinations aren't immediately effective every single time in every single child. That doesn't mean they don't work - seen any cases of polio recently? Thousands of children used to die or be left seriously injured by polio every year until we got a safe, effective vaccine.

So do my children count as one's who should be protected (because they are more at risk from jabs than joe public?). Or should be merrily sacrificing them all to a lifetime of care to protect zebra's children (who have been jabbed anyway so shouldn't need protecting).

I think this hoot time for me isn't it?

Message withdrawn

Just re-read zebra's post "It would be almost as important to me as what was actually in the best interests of my individual child"

Well that's the point isn't it. Other people's children are almost as important to me as my own. I'm quite happy to help out other people's children providing doing so doesn't remove my child's chance of an independent life. It's very easier to be holier than thou when getting yoru child jabbed if you don't actually believe it will harm your child. Bit harder to take them and roll up the trouser leg if you think you are kissing goodbye to any chance of hearing them ever talk to you.

Oh god someone take me away from this please. It's one thing to have to justify free parking, but to be made out to be selfish because I'm not willing to risk history repeating itself. From someone who seems to have issues with me an anyway - yeah yeah I noticed (not you edam).

Actually it's time for a mumsnet rest.

Tarrah de rah.

Parp parp toot toot toot.

Socci- they do work at a population level- in terms of decreasing the incidence of specific diseases- just the interests of populations and individuals often clash. They may not work as well as sometimes suggested, and there may be unwelcome side effects (thimerosal anyone?) but they do cut disease levels.

Yeah yeah I know- I've gone.

this thread seems to have deviated somewhat from the op

Ps - all those 'arguing' against JJ - I remember doung the same on a thread many months back.....it didn't take long for me to change my views

I would still vaccinate any subsequent children I may (or probably not) have - BUT I understand people such as JJ's reasons for not vaccinating

Message withdrawn

huh Socci - not sure why you're apologising to JJ - unless I've missed something!!

Jimjams, I wasn't having a go at you - the other way round!

I was thinking that your children need to be protected by those of us who can get ours jabbed having the jabs, whether MMR or single - because you have very strong reasons for not vaccinating your children! So this thread was a wake-up call for me to get off my behind and actually get ds his single jabs so that, hopefully, he won't be a host for communicable disease that could threaten kids who can't be jabbed - like your family.

Freakyzebra your glowing pride in your outstanding social conscience seems to have blurred your understanding of English. [sorry if that sounds harsh!] I did not say the idea of 'a greater good for society' was a disingenuous idea - i said claiming to vaccinate your child, not for his own good, but for the greater good, was a disingenous argument, because everyone does what is best for one's own child. I suggest I have spend far longer researching and deciding not to vaccinate my child than you have spent dismissing my decision. i suggest i am much better informed about what's best for my child to give him the best chance of a healthy and productive life than you are - which in turn will possibly make my decision the best for society. It is still a very difficult and very scary decision to have to make, one i review all the time. And to accuse those like me who make such a difficult decision of having no social conscience is really amazing. How well you know us, eh? I shall instantly stop my direct debits to Christian Aid and WWF. and I will take up smoking so that I can smoke aroud young children whenever possible. and finally, i still think you are being disingenuous by claiming you would vaccinate if you were in Jimjams shoes. Either that or just not thinking very well. How can you claim that when you are not in her shoes? You would cart your children in to be vaccinated for society's greater good, even though you already had a seriously vaccine damged child? I suppose you would conclude that the child was not vaccine damaged,and so would go ahead and vaccinate the others anyway. That is not the same thing. Anyway, i respect your decison. Shame you can't respect mine.

Socci, just made an appointment for ds's first single jab, so thanks for starting this thread and stirring my wonky social conscience into action.

PS to answer your original question, I probably wouldn't enrol ds in vaccine trials. But there is a big issue about paediatric medicines not being tested on children - the figures in this article underestimate that, I think. So if we want paediatric medicines to be safe, we should really allow our children to test them, shouldn't we? Erm, not sure I'm that altruistic, tbh.

i think the point is that, according to very recently emerging evidence, there may be another group of children, apart from the obviously immuno compromised ones, who may be more susceptible to vaccine damage. Now there are some doctors and scientists who would admit this, tho they are in a minority I agree, but from those I have spoken to and the research I have done, due to my family history and his own, my ds and may fall in that camp. I doubt freaky zebra knows who can and can't tolerate vaccines, so it is probably better not to comment on other people's children i think.

Is it known yet what the factors are that makes someone susceptible to vaccine damage?

family history of auto immune disorders is one thing, especially if mother has one. There is some very new evidence mentioned somewhere on Mumsnet about subtle immunological differences in the way some children respond to vaccines, in particular to tetanus toxoid, but it is very new and ongoing research. A strong history of severe allergies is another possible factor. My ds has gut problems which, if you are not in the Wakefield witch hunt camp makes measles vaccine potentially problematic.