why do parents refuse their baby / childs vaccines?

[bethjoanne]

in the uk we are so lucky to have an nhs---- doctors ,nurses ,treatments and vaccines we should be so grateful.in third world countries babies /children die of terrible diseases and also our relatives eg great great great grandmas would have done anything to have their children vaccinated IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE DREAM TO HAVE AN NHS AND VACCINES, instead they had to witness their child suffer i dread to think what they went through.
what country you are born in is luck of the drawer.
we should be grateful for medical care and vaccines available to us and have our baby/ child vaccinated.
i cannot believe some parents are so selfish and ruthless putting others at risk and starting an epidemic what happened in history and other third world countries .when the nhs is here to help and protect us now.x
ps think about babies 0 day old to 15 months who are too young to be covered /vaccinated.10 babies have died recently from whooping cough.also there has been 2 well known footballers had meningitis recently so there is reported cases,surely this needs nipping in the bud .
why are parents still refusing to vaccinate?

Of course you don't. But you come and say unsubstantiated things, accuse people, bizarrely, of bullying, refuse to engage in debate- I was just wondering what you get out of it.

If only there was some way of making people less likely to catch WC; less likely to suffer badly; and less likely to pass it on

Oh - but wait - there is

And we'll never know what "bodily sanctity" is.

Leonie
"vaccinated children are just as likely to pass on WC as unvaccinated"

This is not true. Vaccinated children are less likely to catch the disease, therefore they are less likely to pass it on.

I gather you don't want to dispute the figures I posted earlier showing how enormously incidence of the disease dropped after universal vaccination.

How do you define "a good vaccine"

The sentence has two meanings. It could have your meaning, PigletJohn, or it could have the meaning "you are much more likely to catch whooping cough from a vaccinated child than an unvaccinated child", which is true, because of the numbers.

I really don't think people should be shamed into vaccinating for putting others at risk, after all if someone said to me Do NOT vaccinate because you are pushing disease into riskier age groups and that puts my child at risk, I would do what is best for my child regardless of that.

I think people maybe need to admit that even if someone was sitting in front of them with a child on their lap saying "please put your child at risk for my child's sake", you would put your own child first. Because parents perceive risks differently, it doesn't matter how much you say "but it puts others at risk"-- nothing will change, because the word "risk" means different things to different people. Its pointless in my opinion to keep repeating it, the only way to change it is to align everyone's definiteon of risk which means as I said earlier providing the evidence and not jusst saying "do it or you are putting other children at risk". The words mean different things to different people

There should have been a full stop on the end there!

I don't believe it was intended to have the meaning "it could have the meaning "you are much more likely to catch whooping cough from a vaccinated child than an unvaccinated child", which is true, because of the numbers" because it would then be pointless.

Rather like saying "you are more likely to be run over by a sober driver than a drunk one." We would not accept that as an argument to favour drunk driving.

Brycie

Risk perception differs among people. The actual risk of outcome x (ie the probability of it happening) is constant, regardless of perception.

It is also important to remember that when people who don't vaccinate are doing their risk perception, the risk of their children contracting disease y is dependent upon the actions of others. It is highly unlikely that there is any young child for whom exposure to diseases like measles, diptheria, polio, whooping cough is preferable to being vaccinated and the risk of children being exposed to these diseases is low precisely because others vaccinate. So while you may argue it is not ethical to expect parents to expose their children to risk for the sake of society (which I would tend to agree with) it is equally unethical to expect other peoples children to take a risk to protect yours, especially when there really isn't any solid evidence that your children are at an increased risk from vaccination than any other child.

People who say that they wouldn't vaccinate anyway, regardless of herd immunity, have a very skewed perception of risk - I think caused by a lack of understanding of probability and a lack of ability to think abstractly about the damage that these diseases cause since deaths averted isn't very emotional.

Seeker

I did have a look at the UN declaration of human rights to see if a right to bodily sanctity was there, especially since leonie said it trumps ALL others. I'm afraid it wasn't there, we don't have a right to bodily sanctity (I'm guessing she treats her body like a temple, not having it defiled by nasty and polluting vaccines) according to the UN.

No but it is true that you are much more likely to catchwhooping cough from a vaccinated child. Your analogy is wrong, suggesting that the reason for this is because of the condition of the perso (vaccinated/unvaccinated sober/drunk), which is the mistake which you said saying Lionie was suggesting? Not at all, it's not down to the condition of the person (vaccinated or unvaccinated) as Elainebenese pointed out. It's down to the numbers of vaccinated people ie because there are so many more of them, there are of course more of them with whooping cough and therefore you are more likly to catch wc from a vaccinated person. It does not mean any specific vaccinated person is more likely to pass it on than any specific unvaccinated person, which is not true because they would be less likely to catch it in the first place.

On the subject of risk perception: social and environmental conditions are not the only ones relevant to perception of risk, you also have the parents' perception of risk for their own individual child, knowledge of its vulnerabilities, family history, personal plans for care and health issues and all that.

So I suppose I am diagreeing with myself in a way and saying it would be impossible to align everyone's definition of risk, which is the reason parents freedom to choose should be defended.

Oh sorry I missed the second part, I do understand what you are saying. Ipersonally don't expect anyone to take a risk to protect my child, mine don't need it. But have you asked people if they expect other children to do that? I know a number of people who don't vaccinate and they all say they dont' need to knw about other people in fact at least two have travelled to high risk countries without vaccinating so I don't think they are "kidding themselves" if you know what I mean. Canyou tell I have had a number of conversations about this.

"I know a number of people who don't vaccinate and they all say they dont' need to knw about other people in fact at least two have travelled to high risk countries without vaccinating so I don't think they are "kidding themselves"

I'm puzzled.

How do they react if/when their child contracts polio, TB or diptheria, in these high-risk areas?

That's my point exactly. If you don't need to know about other people and you take no account of the probability of your child being exposed to and contracting disease x, you're hardly doing an objective risk assessment. Especially so if you travel to a country where certain diseases are even more prevalent.

Either they value different things (eg for me, risk of death or severe disability is the risk I wish to minimize - other people may value other things, like Leonie's bodily sanctity which is important to her above everything else) or they can't do probability. It really is that simple aside from some very extreme cases.

They didn't catch had those diseases, I suppose they assessed the risk of catching them and were right in the end. Each to their own.

Hi Elaine (again!) sorry why is it not objective. They woudl have assumed highest possible risk and still made the decision they did. Yes I think they have different values but that is their right.

were right in the end

were lucky in the end.

Do you believe that if or when they or their family do become ill, they will accept their fate with equanimity?

That's right Piglet. Just because it works out in the end doesn't mean that (without a crystal ball) it was the (objectively) least risky decision to make to begin with iywsim. That's because it's probability. If we knew for certain, who needs to make a risk assessment?

I'm not arguing for forcible vaccination Brycie. I'm just contending that the non -vaccination standpoint, in particular when people claim that non vaccination is an absolute regardless of the risk to the contrary (ie regardless of where you go or what other people do) is a value judgement or a belief system and not one which is based in empirical scientific evidence.

Fine for people to have their beliefs. We allow male circumcision for religious reasons after all. We should just recognize non-vaccination for what it is and not pretend that is actually couched in science.

To my simple mind, the purpose of a vaccination is to reduce the rate of infection, illness and death resulting from a disease

Nobody on here has tried to dispute the figures which to my eye show that the pertussis vaccination (among many others) achieved that.

Does anybody dispute that, if you catch the disease, you are likely to be a lot more ill than you are likely to be from having the vaccination? That isn't a "sacrificing yourself for others" reason for being vaxxed, it's a self-interest point.

Why are you being hostile to me Pigletjohn, I don't like it. I feel pushed into feeling like it's bad to defend my friends when I have had quite the opposite kind of conversation with them. But I don't mind defending them, what they did is totally up to them. How do you know they were lucky, you don't know them or their children, where they went, how they planned their trip or anything. The fact is they made an assessment for their children and tehy were right, for their children. Why do you even mind that they did that, what difference does it make to you.

Elaine, PigletJohn has raised whooping cough but I would like to ask you something about that instead as you seem to be in the know. Is there a vaccine for the other kind of whooping cough that people are talking about ie not the one they already vaccinate for. Why are they not offering this vaccine? Do they know how many cases are which kind?

I didn't respond to your point Elaine. Yes, I agree. I don't know how many people are actually in favour of forced vaccination in the UK.

I don't think I 'm being hostile. I have a simple and direct mind. To me, the purpose of vaccination is to prevent and limit infection, disease, suffering and death. All good things, IMO. If the results of catching the disease are likely to be worse than the results of having the vaccination, I'm in favour of it.

As for risk assessment, I am very familiar with it. If I decide to go over Niagra Falls in a barrel, instead of walking down the footpath beside it, well-documented past experience tells me that I am much less likely to be drowned or smashed to a pulp going down the footpath. If I choose the barrel, and survive, that does not mean that I was "right" and that the barrel option was safe. I just means that (that time) I was lucky.

I don't mind people who go into the barrel with their eyes open, and deciding that the chance of a few seconds excitement, and the glamour and fame that may follow, is in their opinion worth more than the risk of being fished out of the water in several pieces downstream. However I do object to people who claim fallaciously that the footpath is more dangerous, because somebody fell off the wall into the water when posing for a photo, or that the barrel is safe, because somebody survived it in 1888.

To be honest I think it is quite hostile to ask questions like "if they are very ill will they accept that with equanimity" and that quite sarcastic or faux naive "i'm puzzled", it feels like game playing to me and I don't really like that, I like the conversation but I don't care for that. I'm sorry I've only read the first line of your last post accordingly!