Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

GP unfriendly due to non vaccinated child

110 replies

Elf · 17/09/2003 10:40

Our GP is a bit of a git anyway but the last time I went to him about a slight problem I had, he asked me about DD's lack of vaccinations. She hasn't had any because we are in that camp of thinking they are not a good idea. Anyway, he wasn't aggressive but it was the first time I had been challenged by a professional like that. ( DD has never been to see him as we see a homeopath if she as teething probs or whatever). When we get back to England I would like another GP because he is horrible but I wondered if it is possible to find a GP who is sympathetic to the non vaccinating parent as presumably they are all pro. Do any of you have an understanding GP?

OP posts:
Elf · 17/09/2003 10:41

PS I may not be able to reply for a few days but please reply anyway!

OP posts:
Jimjams · 17/09/2003 11:22

My GP is fine- everyone at the surgery are very good and they bin all the "be wise immunise" reminders that they get sent. The GP asked me to write a letter giving my reasons as he was being hassled. So I sent him a 3 page essay and he said half a side would have done! The 3 page essay did mean he couldn't accuse me of not having researched the subject- as it was all referenced.

I do have an "advantage" though, a vaccinated autistic elder child, I find that most GP's etc feel a bit on shaky ground about arguing about ds2's lack of vaccinations.

I'd just hunt around, maybe ask around. My Gp is also a qualified acupuncturist so maybe he's a bit more alternative than most.

WideWebWitch · 17/09/2003 11:36

Hi elf. My ds isn't vaccinated and I've never particularly been challenged on it, despite being ready for 'em! Maybe they see the look in my eye, I don't know, but I haven't had any grief so far with 3 different GPs. Ds is nearly 6 and I have been asked but they've just written it down and moved swifty on. Maybe I've been lucky though. Bear in mind that GPs are paid for meeting vaccination targets so there could be a financial reason for his snarl. Anyway, IME they do ask but if that's all he did then I wouldn't worry, he probably won't ask again. If he's horrible in general I'd change doctor.

pupuce · 17/09/2003 21:05

I have had no problem either - they know my kids are not vaccinated and are fine with it - we get no reminders (which is nice).

princesspeahead · 17/09/2003 22:06

elf the reason he may be being a git is because GPs get extra money if they hit targets relating to arious things - getting women in for cervical smears is one and, you guessed it, immunisations is another. If they don't get 80% or something of children in their practice fully immunised they lose quite a chunk of cash. If you live in quite a "middle class" area, then it is likely that he is close to losing his target which is why he is being a git.
I was refused entry to a GP's list becuase mine hadn't had MMR - she was within one or two children of losing several thousand pounds of income and wouldn't take me on.
So much for GPs' impartial medically balanced advice.

Paula71 · 18/09/2003 00:48

Just a thought folks and I am not bothered if you do or don't believe in vaccines.

I got my twin ds' their MMR.

I am not a bad mother just not convinced there is any evidence after doing my own research while pregnant.

Anyway...I am partially deaf after having measles as a child. My uncle is completely deaf in one ear after the same thing as a child. We got off lightly.

I didn't want to gamble. The WHO support it. If you are worried about pumping all those nasty chemicals into your bub think about all the poisons already in the environment. Is it worth the risk?

Paula71 · 18/09/2003 00:52

Oops, posted too early. The GPs who get snooty are probably fed up with seeing children suffer unnecessary diseases. There are going to be epidemics so those who don't get their children vaccinated are therefore going to put at risk every child who is too young to get vaccinated despite what their parents wish.

FairyMum · 18/09/2003 07:48

In my opinion it is a GP's job to discuss with the parents why they won't vaccinate. In a respectful way of course. In my toddler group there are several people who don't give their children the MMR.Only a few of them seem to have done enough research to really understand the issue. Most of them have simply reada couple of articles in the daily papers or watched something on tv which have frightened them into not vaccinating. I do not believe in this argument that GP's want to vaccinate to earn money. I think it's utter rubbish. GP's understand the consequences of not vaccinating children and are naturally worried about so many people choosing not to vaccinate their child. GP's look at society as a whole rather than the individual child and think they are absolutely right!

codswallop · 18/09/2003 08:23

Just let us vaccinate our children against it and well have the risk then?

WideWebWitch · 18/09/2003 08:27

Oh No! An MMR thread kicking off again...I'm not getting involved...

pupuce · 18/09/2003 08:30

Is this turning into a vaccine debate

codswallop · 18/09/2003 08:30

No I give in. am off

Batters · 18/09/2003 08:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jimjams · 18/09/2003 09:11

uh oh oh no no no we've been here before. My Mum is deaf in one ear becuase of measles, she's watched her first grandson become autistic. Think she'd choose deafness any day (or how about some vitamin A if one of the children gets measles as that reduces complications, or a safe way of vaccinating if that was someones choice).

The pros and cons are not easy to weigh up and are different for every family. Vaccination is not complusary in the UK which means that everyone is entitled to make their own decisions. If the vaccinations work as well as they are meant to then if you choose to vaccinate your child then someone elses decision not to vaccinate theirs shouldn't have any effect on you. I chose to vaccinate my first child with everything, and for the moment I've chosen not to vaccinate my second child at all. I don't really see why it is anyone else's business. I think I've read more about the subject than anyone else on mumsnet. There are risks with either choice, but the choice that every individual parent makes is there own, and no-one elses so before this gets out of hand why not accept we sometimes have different views and that's perfectly acceptable.

And Fairy Mum this socity crap does my head in. Don't see many pillars of society helping out with my autistic kiddie, no-one's exactyl offering to babysit anyway. Don't exactly see the NHS helping out either come to that.

Oh dear think I could get cross. Surely we can agree that ww're all entitled to make our own decisons can't we????

FairyMum · 18/09/2003 09:27

Jimjams, I cannot see that I have written a anything "out of hand". I was trying to argue why a GP would try to persuade parents to vaccinate. I do not believe that all parents can understand or make sense of all the information out there on vaccination. In my opinion a lot of the anti-vaccination material is written in a very populistic and pseudo scientific way. It is perhaps easier for many people to understand than proper medical research. Afterall, most of us have no medical training.

I think this is a choice too important to be an individual choice. It is actually a choice which affects both your own children and other children. I cannot see what is "society crap" about that ?

Of course I agree there should be more support for parents of sick children, but I don't really see what that has got to do with the vaccination debate.

Jimjams · 18/09/2003 10:05

err my son's not sick, he's autistic, but anyway.

The reason I get fed up with this "good of society" rubbish is that it doesn't stand up to analysis as an argument anyway.

Take the vaccinations one by one. Diptheria and polio need to be excluded as they are non-existent in the UK now. Tetanus needs to be excluded as it is not transmitted from person to person. Whooping cough is a tricky one. tere were lots of cases of whooping cough last year, one research group found that the whooping cough bacteria had mutated and the vaccine no longer protected against it, other studies found that the reservoir for infection was form vaccinated adults who's protection had worn off (whooping cough in an adult is quite hard to spot). Hib is a nother tricky one as the likelihood of someone catching hib depends on all sorts of factors such as whether or not they attend daycare, how lng they were breastfed for. Even meningitis C isn't a straightforward relationship as one suggestion is that reducing cases of meningitis C will just increasr the number of cases of men B. There is a nationwide study underway to look at that.

So that leaves us with measles, mumps and rubella. Rubella is a good case in point as the only reason to vaccinated a boy with rubella is for the good of society. My son had rubella last year - he caught it from an unvaccinated child. My friend told me as soon as she realised her child had rubella and we were able to quarantine him effectively. My friend's child had caught rubella from a vaccinated child- it wasn't recognised (the child had been vaccinated so it couldn't possibly be rubella it must just be another virus). So the person who spread rubella round the community was the "responsible" mother whilst us irresponsible mums sat inside with our infected children. (not having a go at the mum here btw- I would have thought ds1 had heat rash if I hadn't known he'd been in contact with rubella).

And the whole good of society thing assumes that vaccinations carry no risk. Well all vaccinations carry a risk and some children will be more at risk than others. I didn't decide not to vaccinate ds2 just becuase of autism, in fact I was more interested in the whole range of autoimmune conditions displayed by dh's family. There is a fairly strong body of evidence that if you have a predisposition to autoimmunity then vaccinations further increase that risk. Funnily enough we talked about things like diabetes as well, and a few months ago (ie over a year after ds2 should have receievd his baby jabs) SIL was diagnosed with type I diabetes.

There is a lot of rubbish written about vaccinations, but a lot of it comes from the department of health. One book I've recommended a lot on here is "the vaccination bib;e" from what doctors don't tell you as it is referenced throughout. I have now discovered an even better book (well referenced, a little more balanced) The vaccine guide- risks and benefits for children and adults by Randall Neustaedter- it has endorsements on the back from paediatricians. It is very goo, available from Amazon and I'd recommmend it to anyone wondering what to do.

This is a quote from the book- taken from an article in Lancet (Moxon 1990)

"There is much to be learned about how best to use vaccines for maximum benefit to the community as well as to the individual. For a pathogenic microbe to persist within a population the density of susceptible individuals needs to exceed a critical value such that, on average, each primary case of infection generates at least one secondary. Thus, it may be to the benefit of society as a whole for an individual to be immunised but in that individual's interests not to be! As with other matters of altruism in society, the promotion of vaccination to secure herd immunity raises complex issues."

Everyone will reach their own decision based on their analysis of the risk/benefit ratio (and in many cases this will be a gut feeling). And everyone is perfectly entitled to choose whichever route they want for their child. However whatever decision someone makes it is not simple choice.

Jimjams · 18/09/2003 10:06

really should preview- ignore typos

WideWebWitch · 18/09/2003 10:06

Fairymum, I completely disagree that, to quote you, "this is a choice too important to be an individual choice. It is actually a choice which affects both your own children and other children. I cannot see what is "society crap" about that ?" Well, several points:

  • I know Jimjams made this point but if vaccination is so good and you've had your child vaccinated then what's the problem if I haven't? If MY child gets measles it won't affect yours will it?
  • If you, like Jimjams, had read an awful lot about this (and understood it), had a family history that suggested vaccination might not be the way to go, and had an autistic child who may well have auto immune issues that could be exacerbated by vaccination, would you still argue that it's not your choice to decide not to vaccinate? And we're not talking about the govt providing a little way short of the help that's required to look after an autistic child either, we're talking about a BIG shortfall. (sorry jimjams, talking about you here but feel free to contradict me)

If GPs weren't given any money to hit vaccination targets then I might be prepared to accept your view that money doesn't enter into it but the fact remains that GPs are financially incentivised to support vaccination. True, they may also support it for other reasons but since money is involved parents are entitled to consider that their views may not be entirely impartial.

If the govt really wants more children to be vaccinated (and if this is their only concern - i.e. public health) then it should allow single jabs on the NHS IMO. I suspect the reason it doesn't is because it would be 'off message' and would undermine their MMR campaign. Sorry, but the govt told us beef was fine and look what happened with BSE. I therefore think people are entitled to do their own research, come to their own conclusions, and do what they think is best for their child.

Batters, said I wouldn't but oh no! I'm being sucked in! (Fairymum, we've had lots of MMR threads on mumsnet before

Jimjams · 18/09/2003 10:21

Nick Hornby is always going to say it better than me. This article explains why the whole society thing is like a red rag to a bull. Whenever I read this article I veer between laughing out loud, wanting to puch the wall and feeling like sobbing......

observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4353211-102273,00.html

FairyMum · 18/09/2003 11:09

JimJams, why do you think polio and Diptheria is non-existent in the UK. Isn't it because of vaccination?

WWW, I think all of us with healthy children should vaccinate as it would be safer for the children who cannot or should not be vaccintaion for various reason. My friend has a little boy with a heart problem and has chosen not to vaccinate him and I can also see why parents of children with strong allergies or family history of autism would chose not to vaccinate. I know you can argue that a child might have some hidden problem that would mean it is not wise to vaccinate, but we can't all think like that.
*I have read a lot about this issue. I do not understand all of it and I don't think any of us do. we are not medically trained and also there are ways to manipulate research and findings to proove your point (both sides are probably guilty of this I am sure).
Also, I am failry new to mumsnet so haven't read any of the previous discussions. feel free not to read my postings if you are fed up with discussing the MMR. I was replying to Elf's posting,)

Pimpernel · 18/09/2003 11:11

I think there's an argument that society is 'better off' if some parents opt not to have the vaccinations. At the moment, we simply don't know the long-term (or short-term in some cases) effects of our vaccination programme. If every single child is vaccinated, we will never be able to carry out research because we won't have a control group. Society needs that unvaccinated control group.

I also think it's naive to assume that the financial inducements don't have any effect on GP's behaviour. Financial inducements are just that - inducements. And although I would like to believe that GPs always act in the interests of their patients, history shows that doctors have sometimes got it wrong - think of thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol.

aloha · 18/09/2003 11:18

Jimjams, what were the symptoms of Rubella in your ds and in your friend's vaccinated child?

FairyMum · 18/09/2003 11:22

As you can probably tell from what I have already written I think we all have a social responsibility to vaccinate our children. I would be interested to know from those of you who believe it is a personal choice what you think the effects would be if we all choose NOT to vaccinate?

WideWebWitch · 18/09/2003 11:24

Fairymum, I didn't say I was fed up with discussing MMR or that I didn't want to read your posts so I don't think there's any need for the agressive tone. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I and I don't think my post was rude, I just disagreed with you. I put a smiley after my comment about there having been lots of MMR discussions to show that it was meant to be a lighthearted point...if you do a search on MMR you'll see what I mean - they've often degenerated into rows and I've no wish for that to happen on this thread thanks. OTOH I don't particularly want to leave this thread for the pro MMR camp...

BTW, if MMR was compulsory then your friend who hasn't vaccinated wouldn't have a choice.

misdee · 18/09/2003 11:34

i am planning to let my dd2 have the mmr and hib booster, but am going to wait until after her allergy appointments (just come thro for nov), and make sure there are no underlying probs with my dd2. my dd1 had her jabs no problems, but she is a very allergic child, so think i am just err-ing on the side of caution this time.
my dd2 has had her baby jabs, but instead of getting them done closely together, they were spread out over the 1st year of her life. this wsnt actually done by choice, just worked out that way as she suffers bouts of sickness, so she had them inbetween sick periods.
i had rubella as a child, i didnt feel ill, just had a rash and slight temp. but i still had to have my rubella jab at the age of 12 bah!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread