GP unfriendly due to non vaccinated child

[Elf]

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?

interesting discussion, this. In some countries like America I believe vaccinations are compulsory and children can only attend schools if they've had the jabs which include a jab for chickenpox. Personally I believe you must ne entitled to make your own choice and if your unvaccinated child contracts X disease then so be it - the parents will have considered that.It's not right to force people to nave haccinations if parents arent't happy about the chemicals in them. My dh and I opted for single measles, rubella and mumps for our daughter but have decided against the hib booster( which was caused by an NHS fuck up - where's the publicity about that ????). There comes a point when you have to allow parents to make up their own minds and treat them as intelligent people who want the best for their children. And another thing - at what point do we stop vaccinating ? should our kids be vaccinated against chickenpox as they are in the US ? what about colds and flu,etc etc.Presumably what will happen is the allery rate will soar and more children will develop terribul allergic problems to even more substances as their immune systems will have become entirely redundant.

excuse awful spellings, that should read 'allergy'and 'terrible'. I do have a brain, honest.

It wasn't meant to be aggressive. Perhaps I should have put a smiley face next to my comment too, but I did notice (and have noticed in other threads on Mumsnet) that there were some "oh here we go again" comments. I have seen those on other discussions touching on the MMR-debate in here too. Remember we are many users in here and peole come and and wants to have their say too.

My friend who have chosen not to vaccinate was actually advised by the doctor not to.

I still haven't made up my mind on MMR for dd (she has had other vaccinations however) but think Jimjams comes across as extremely articulate, informative and passionate on this subject understandably. My friends child was diagnosed as autistic and out of my small sample of friends children, 9 of them, he sticks in my mind and I disregard the other 8 who have not had reactions to the vaccine. It's an emotional subject and one I wish I could make my mind up on.

FairyMum, I'm still trying to decide what to do about MMR (not an issue for us yet as dd isn't old enough), but I think the answer to your question about everyone choosing not to vaccinate is "I don't know". However, I would have to answer the same if you'd asked "what would be the effect if everyone chose to vaccinate?". As a society we simply don't know the effects of our vaccination programs. It is so important that it must be an individual choice.

Having a little girl with special needs already the thought of adding to them by giving her the MMR was basically out of the question. However I have started to have them done as single vaccines and she has so far had the mumps vaccine and I have booked her to have her rubella later on.

I thinks it's digusting that it was made difficult for me to do this and the doctor I saw about it was very snotty with me and tried to puch me to have the MMR done there!

I think all parents have the right to do what they feel is right for their child. However not sure about the consequences of what would happen if no child in the UK were vaccinated so understand the GP's feeling that it's their job to ensure that the majority of kids are vaccinated to stop epidemics.

Fairymum, my point still is that if MMR were compulsory then your friend wouldn't have had the choice, regardless of medical advice - you said you thought MMR should be compulsory. With exemptions for people like your friend then? Or for people who can show they've read enough and made an informed decision? And if so, how do you quantify that? Anyway, I expect we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think generally the 'here we go again' comments are meant lightheartedly, here and on other threads. I do know there "are many users here and people want to come and have their say too" thanks. That's fine, let them. Equally, those of us that have been involved 100s of times are entitled to say 'ooh, here we go again'. I'm out of here before I say something I regret.

Fairymum- even the decline of the diseases is not necessarily linked to vaccination. The mortality rate from diptheria had declined by 50% before widespread use of the vaccine. Think of scarlet fever- at the beginning of this century it was a disease that was feared but not now, and that has happened without vaccination (although no douvbt had a vaccination been developed we would have been told it was due to this). Polio- yes the vaccine probably has had more to do with erradication in places like the UK- but even polio is a bit odd as although its been around for centuries epidemics didn't occur until recently. The ecology of infectious disease is complex. Its also an interesting one as the pro vaccinators in the USA look on with horror at the UK use of oral poilio vaccine (as it has been the only cause of paralytic polio in places like the UK recently), whilst the UK pro vaccinators think the use of killed polio vaccine in the States to be dangerous (as it apparently isn't as effective). i do have to question the sense of vaccinating everyone against a disease that they have a zero chance of contracting whilst they remain in the UK or US. (i think there is a reasonable arguement for using polio as a travellers vaccine).

What would be the effects of not vaccinating? Well I;m not anti-vaccination. I'm anti MASS vaccination which is a different kettle of fish. I think there are good arguments for the majority of children receiving tetanus (but thimerosil free please and why not wait until they can walk and are likely to get tetanus type injuries), for children in daycare under the age of 18 months to recieve hib- especially if they haven't been breast fed for very long, for teenagers to receive meningitis C and for teenage girls to receieve rubella (if they havent had it). Others- not so sure about the risk/benefit ratio it become murlier to my eyes.

You don't need to be medically trained to understand the arguments. The majority of drs do not know very much about vaccination. Doctors tend to be people who are good at retaining a lot of information, but they are not necessarily good at weighing up arguments. (I've taught doctors). Read the vaccine guide and you will know more about the arguments than the average GP, especially if you follow up the references it provides. Its a very good tool for really weighing up the arguments.

What would be the effects on not vaccinatiing? Well the incidence of some of the diseases would rise (probably hib, certainly measles and mumps, probably men C- although maybe men B would drop) tetanus- although probably only very slightly providng there was good wound care and the option of vaccination for suspicious wounds. It would also be interesting though to see what effect it would have on the numbers of cases of babies with measles (should be less after a generation as mothers will once again have immunity to confer on their children). And of course numbers of cases of autism, ADHD, diabetes, eczema, asthma etc etc etc And that's never going to happen anyway.

Donnie- there are ways round the US system. IN Claifornia for example its easy - you can get a "philosophical exemption" other states its failr easy to get a medical exemption.

Aloha- friends child had the classic runny nose and rash etc, DS1 had a very typical rash- came down with it exactly the right number of days after exposure (bfed ds2 didn't get it).

aloha- sorry only answered for ds. They all had the same symptoms- the main one being the rash (it really is quite distinctive if you get it) and the timing- it was passed from child to child to child with exactly the right incubation period. GP's comfirmed the diagnosis in my friend's child and another child who was infected by the vaccinated child iyswim.

oh btw- I think most people know this anyway, my son was not MMR damaged, but I do know children who were. I don't think the baby vaccinations did him many favours but his case is too complex to get into here.

This is always a thread where emotions run high, and I can understand why.

My ds (17 months) has had his MMR. It is not a decision that I nor dh took lightly, we did lots of research, and decided that as far as ds was concerned, immunisation was in his best interests. On the other hand, I totally understand and respect parents who choose not to immunise. It's rubbish to say that we have a 'social' responsibility to immunise our children. In the first instance as parents we have an 'individual' responsibility - to that of our child.

I believe I have a social responsibility to vaccinate. Maybe my children would survive measles, but I am sure my friend's child with a weak heart would not. I feel a responsibility to protect him against getting ill too!

Jimjams, why would men B drop if we stopped vaccinating against men C?

It's a possibility. generally the total nuymber of meningitis cases each year stays fairly constant, although the numbers caused by each strain varies. There is a suspicion that vaccinating against men c will just increase the number of men B cases- a team at Oxford have been collecting throat swab samples across the UK since the introduction of men C to see whether this is happening. The results of the study haven't been published yet (or at least they hadn't last time I looked).

I think the theory behind it is something along the lines of you're not really meant to get meningitis- it's a very common organism so you only get it if there is something wrong with your immune system. In other words if you remove men c from the ecosystem (or protect someone against men c) then men B will just take its place and if you have a dodgy immune system you'll get that instead. This research is undergoing. I don't know what they'll do if they find total number of meningitis cases are the same- just the strains are different.

Just another demonstration of the complexity of the issue.

There is another problem with vaccinating against measles. It means that babies and adults are more likely to get it (as with no vaccination people get it in childhood, and mothers grow up, have kids and pass on immunity to their children protecting them during infancy). So children with weak hearts are going to be more at risk during infancy than they would have been in the pre-vaccination era (although they will be less at risk during childhood). Epidemics of measles have appeared sporadically in fully vaccinated populations (and in any measles outbreak about 60% of those affected have been vaccinated) - in other words it doesn;t work that well, so even if everyine accepted the risk in getting their child vaccinated susceptible children still wouldn't be protected.

The complexities of the arguments just demonstrate that there is no right or wrong answer. It's up to each individual family to choose the right path for them.

I haven't heard that theory about the men C vaccine. I am not sure how they compare C and B as I thought one was viral and one bacterial. I personally know someone who lost her dd to Men B so this is quite close to my heart.(Men B can also be a side effect of measles).

Not sure what you mean by "you are not meant to get meningites". Well, yes it is true that you are more susceptible to it if your immune system is low like all illnesses. However, meningites is extremely contagious. If one child contracts it in my homeland Sweden, they will close down the whole school or nursery. I hope they will find a vaccine against the men B version so we can eradicate it. Unfortunatly, if we do, I am sure there will be people in years to come who will not remember how we feared meningites and how it killed our babies and children or left them brain damaged. Again people will stop vaccinating and the illness will be back. How quickly we forget......

You are confusing viral meningitis (also known as aspetic meningitis) with meningococcal meningitis.

Meningitis C and meningitis B are both different strains of meningococcal meningitis. Meninigitis C has a higher mortality rate but is less common, and mainly infects teenagers and you g adults. meningitis B is a more common killer of babies. Meningitis B is not a side effect of measles.

Viral meningitis is not usually serious (although horribly unpleasant) what I mean is that usually a full recovery is made). One of the most common causes of aspetic meningitis is mumps, but many other viruses can be involved.

The meningitis C vaccine is still very new. it was first intorduced into the UK and 6 months after the introduction 5000 adverse events had been reported- which amounted to one adverse reaction in every 3000 doses. Meninigitis C is a killer, but a baby is 8 times more likely to die from cot death. As I said before I believe there could be an argument for immunising teenagers- probably especially those going to university.

Meningitis B is a different matter, and there may well be a case for vaccinating babies if a safe vaccine can be developed.

What I mean by you are not meant to get meningitis is that as an organism meningitis is widespread in the community so if you are susceptible to getting meningitis then if you remove one strain, it may be that you will just get the other strain. As I said this is currently being examined to see whether or not this happens.

Just to add - I'm not trying to say don't vaccinate. Every parent needs to make their own choice (I wish the government information was more accurate but still). I'm just trying to demonstrate that the issues are very complex, and whatever decision a parent reaches be it all vaccinations, no vaccinaiton or just some vaccinations it's not a decision that is right or wrong, it's just their choice, based on their circumstances. And really it doesn't have to concern anyone else.

jimjams, just out of interest, why are diptheria and polio non-existent in UK now???

sorry, just being provocative. please ignore my naughtiness. I should write down 100 times, I must NOT post on MMR/vaccination threads...

bundle read further down - answered that one.

Look once again I am not anti-vaccination, I am anti mass vaccination. I am not bothered by anyone elses' decision they can do whatever they like with their child. If I was about to cart my children off for a tour of the balkan states I would ensure they were vaccinated against diptheria, if I was about to take them to India I would ensure the were vaccinated against polio becuase obviously the risks of the disease would outweigh the risks of the vaccine, but every vaccination carries a risk so I can't see the point of vaccinating them against something which doesn't exist (btw WHO is considering recommending stopping routine vaccination against polio in some countries- especially as OPV causes more cases of polio than it actually protects against).

It's easy to come on here and make throwawy comments on vaccination, but I have a walking, non talking reminder that whilst vaccination undoubtably saves lives, it also destroys others.

oh jimjams I am the same as you although I have had my two vaccinated I think everyone should have choices as to what they want to do. You shouldnt have to explain yourself. When you have an SN child mmr 'does' raise concerns, and when your paed raises his concerns too it does make you worry. But I did have my 2nd vaccinated too but was bloody worried about it

dammed if you do and dammed if you don't fio2

Jimjams, I think most of us know this is a complex issue. I agree with many of the things you are saying, but the point I am making is that since it is so complicated it is difficult for parents to understand the medical evidence and research involved. My concern is that many people will be too scared to vaccinate and that the consequences will be that many children get very ill from these illnesses. I think it is too easy to argue that polio has not been seen in the UK for many years etc. With all the immigration from 3rd world countries , we now see many diseases we haven't seen for a long time in the UK (for example TB).
I think we have to look very carefully at our sources. I see the source you quoted further down (Randall N) as neutral and putting forward both sides. In my opinion this man has got his feet firmly planted in the anti-vaccine group so I think that he is neutral is a slight exaggeration.....

my sister couldnt be vaccinnated for TB because she had severe cystic fibrosis. Unfortunatley she did develop but not catch TB(is it A strain, cant remember) after her transplant and it was onlt diagnosed a week or so before she died () The vaccination would not have helped 'not' develop it at all. I KNOW this is the point jimjams is making about the men c vacccination, but only just realised this myself!!! (having another thick day

cant type either!!!!