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?

leoniedelt. Reboxetine is certainly subject to historical data withholding which was addressed with the new law, hence the negative meta analysis being possible now as Pfizer released the old data.

I'm not daft, the law will keep tightening over time as some arseholes try and misuse it. And that's as it should be.

Thank you for your informative posts Katie.

The answer to your question: confirmation bias.

Jo

In case you don't know, pagwatch is referring to an earlier thread in aibu. This thread is a spin off. In the original thread, there was a mum concerned about febrile convulsions who (I agree) was treated very harshly and unfairly. That's how all this started.

Posie, I have a masters in data/statistical analysis and qualitative and quantitive primary/secondary evidence analysis. How well qualified do I have to be before my research isn't pseudo-intellectual?

The answer to your question: confirmation bias
I completely agree with that!

There is a LOT of bias in research, wo even going in the issue of why only the positive research are actually published and not the other 20 negative ones, and for me this IS the reason why I am always cautious when I read 'Oh such and such research has shown that xxx'. And why some people can be weary of the line 'But research has shown that ...' because tbh, if 50% of research can't be replicated, then as far as I am concerned, it means 50% of what we think we know isn't the truth (or rather we can not say it IS the truth. It might be or it might not. We don't know).

For one thing, I can not understand how it is possible to say that all children should be vaccinated when we all know (?) that not every drugs is suitable for any patient.
No one would ever say that all people who have headaches have to take let's say paracetamol or ibuprofen. Because we know that
1- some people react badly to them (eg: some 1000 people die every year from gastro intestinal issue following a course of NSAD)
2- they don't always work (eg they actually do cause headaches...)
3- well they just have side effects varying depending on the condition of the patient, incl the issue of association with other medications.
So why why should we assume that all children should have all the vax at the age given by the NHS (or whatever other health authority it is)? And that there can't be any side effects? Or that these side effects are just mild, they can't be that serious?

In the same way, we would all agree that it is the patient choice to follow (or not) a consultant advice regarding their illness. It is OK for a pg woman to say no to an induction or for a cancer patient to have such and such treatment.
So, why is it suddenly 'bad, irresponsible etc...' to actually use of our own free choice to choose to have a vax (or for our dc to have a vax)? Is that OK to force everyone to have a drug even if you know that X amount of patients will die from it/develop a serious illness? Even if if this number of people is very low? (Very important Ethical question there btw.)

Why is it that, as parents/patients, we are never shown the list of possible side effects and contra indications for vax?
I always read the ones on any medication I take. When I was taking some drugs to treat endometriosis, I knew from that list a side effect was high blood pressure (not that my consultant ever said a word about it...). When I was rushed to hospital with very bad headaches etc..., I could tell what was the cause.
Now what about vax? Have you ever been told about possible side effects (apart from the 'Oh he might feel a bit under the weather...') or contra indications? I do not believe these are the only possible side effects or contra indication for them but no one ever wants to honestly talk about it with patients (That's the result of the bias that 'vax are good for you' there). Sensible discussion wo anyone putting down the other would probably go a really long way to reassure parents who are worried or avoid any feeling of 'conspiraty' or 'big pharmas are just there to make money not to make people better'.

This whole subject of vax has become a very emotive issue. And everyone finds it easy to twist results etc... to make them say what they want.
A good example for me is the MMR.
I went to see paed for ds as he had chronic constipation. He had it since just after he had the first MMR. I raised the issue with the paed who, of course, told me 'But there is no link between the MMR and the vax. We haven't proven that there is any link'. (Add pissed off face and annoyed tone of voice)
I said 'Yes. But we haven't proven that there is no link either'.
He stayed silent for a bit and just said 'no, we haven't.' And that's right, the answer is we don't know. Not having found the link yet doesn't mean there is no link.

Instead we just end up with people piling up saying that 'oh you can't be able to really analyse data in an appropriate way','Oh you can't read research' (put down), 'oh but you are putting millions of people at risk' (guilt), 'Oh but you are putting your child in danger' (fear) etc....
All of which are just emotional ways to get you way out of it wo a real discussion.

But it hardly ever brings the 'truth' (what ever that is) or the best solution though.

Handholding. You are right. No drug or vaccine is ever right for everybody. Ever. It is was it would be useless. All drugs/vaccines have advice on who not to treat/dose as all which do something have unwanted effects also.

Any GP ignoring reported adverse events is failing in their job. All should be recorded and investigated. How does a drug company and regulator update labelling if they don't receive reports???

Better still patients or parents can now report directly rather than going via their Dr.

handholding

you're conflating confirmation bias and publication bias.

while you're right that you can't say a link between exposure x and outcome y doesn't exist if you haven't studied it, you could equally say that about any exposure and outcome - so you could say that there is no evidence that the MMR doesn't, say, cause brain tumours. But there's no theoretical reason to even suspect that it does but I still can't say that there is evidence that the MMR DOESN'T cause brain tumours.

There are various outcomes that have been studied, looking at their association with exposure to vaccines (of various sorts). There is strong evidence to show that vaccines are very safe with respect to those outcomes. Yes, there is a small chance that they are wrong simply through random chance even. But when study after study, with different non random biases as well (ie biases from the study design itself), comes up with the same results then the probability is strongly in favour of the vaccine being safe. Nothing's 100%, of course not, but the probability of, say, the MMR being the cause of autism (one which has been studied a lot) is negligible.

That's not to say that side effects can't happen and that those side effects can be serious. There are also a very small number of children for whom the risk of vaccination outweights the risk of not being vaccinated (although that often assumes that others WILL vaccinate). But the evidence is that the risk of long term damage from side effects from the vaccines routinely given in childhood in the UK is tiny, really tiny.

Yes but it doesn't address 3 issues

1- Is it ethically OK to give a vax to all children knowing that some will be badly affected by the vax?
2- Why is it that parents are NOT told about the contra-indications and side effects (all of them!) of the vax like they would be with any other medicine?
3- Why is it that patients are allowed to choose what they think is right for them on any other procedure (so they can refuse an op for cancer for example) but this isn't an acceptable answer for vax?

Saying that the effects are negligible etc... will be of very little comfort for the child who has suffered from these side effects. They will be of little comfort to the parents either, especially if they had doubt in the first place (as it is the case in the OP that started this new thread).
Would be able to like with the guilt to have accepted to give something to your child that hurt him even though you didn't think it was suitable for them?

1. Because the amount of children that will be harmed by the actual disease if we dont vaccinate is far higher than those that are harmed by vaccination. You could say is it ethically acceptable to allow a disease that could harm and kill, when it can be easily be prevented.

2.The contradictions are not a secret they are easy to find out,

3.Because not having an op for cancer doesnt affect the rest of society in the way not having a vaccine may ie reducing herd immunity.

But would YOU be happy to live with the guilt bruffin?
Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?
Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable?

I am sure that from far away the answer is a resounding 'YES it is better to take the risk' but when it is about you or your child... somehow I don't think that would be the answer.

Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?

That's not why most people vaccinate though. They vaccinate so their child doesn't get the diseases and thus, the potentially serious complications.

HandHolding When you talk about guilt, losing a child, and preventable, are you refering to vaccine damage or disease damage?

But would YOU be happy to live with the guilt bruffin?

The day before my ds's chicken pox spots came out we bumped to into a little friend who had leukemia. Luckily i could inform her mum that ds had chicken pox the next day and she could take preventative action. I would not have lived with the guilt if i found out that my ds passing on a preventable disease to a child that could easily have died from it.

Would YOU be happy to have lost a child 'for the good of the society'?
Not sure what you are really trying to say, but how many children have actually died from vaccine damage compared to the illnesses? The numbers are miniscule.

Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable?

Again you are far more likely to be disabled/ill from the diseases themselves.

I told the story on the other thread. My DS has a genetic condition called GEFS+ which means he has had far more than normal febrile convulsions ie 20+ and the last one he had was at 13, the normal age to grown out of them is 5.
I had to weigh up the risk of him having a fc from the vaccination or the disease. I chose to vaccinate because the chances of him having an fc from the disease is much higher and the vaccination is "planned" so i know when to look out for one. If he were to catch the disease he would have one out of the blue and could have been anywhere.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence at all that healthy children are made more than temporarily ill by current vaccines. And any child who might to be damaged- by beingbimmunosupressed, for example, would be flagged before vaccination. And before I get flamed, I am aware that there are some parents who sincerely believe that their child was damaged, but there just isn't any evidence to support this. And people on both sides of the debate have beennhunting for evidence for years and found none. And there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that children have been made very ill by the diseases that vaccines prevent. So it's a no brainer, as far as I can see.

"Would YOU be happy to be disabled/ill knowing that was completely preventable? "

Completely preventable by vaccination?

Exactly seeker.

Holding hands.
There's no 'no risk' option. And when faced with a situation like that you have two possible errors. One: You choose to vaccinate and your child is left dead/permanently disabled. Two: You choose not to vaccinate and your child is left dead/permanently disabled.

You don't have an option of zero probability of error. I personally don't care which error I am reducing, my point is to choose the error with the smallest probability of occurring. Since all evidence shows that the probability of error one is extremely small (probability of death - practically zero to all intents and purposes) and the probability of error two is (while still small) larger, the objective and rational decision is to vaccinate with the current childhood vaccinations.

There are some children for whom we know that error one is much greater than error two when all other children are vaccinated. This is a social good since we then allow them to reduce their probability of death or serious disability while at the same time reducing that of our own children, assuming they do not fall into this category. It also allows us to err on the side of caution. When people who can vaccinate their children, don't then they are not only plumping for the higher risk error, but they raise the risk for those for whom the risk is already elevated (although first and foremost, they raise the risk for their own children).

Really informative exchanges, thank you. I think the posts by ElainBenes and handholding have confirmed the view that I had earlier, which is in favour of the parents right to choose. Because of the way you describe the choices, ElaineBenes, it does highlight that we don't have the right to tell someone else to take the risk. When I took the "risk" of vaccinating, I did it for my own children, as crashdoll said, and if I had done it because other people wanted me to, the guilt of any adverse reaction woudl have been even more overwhelming. I do not like the idea of carryingthat burden having told or shamed somebody ielse into doing it.

Yes, I agree Brycie.

My problem isn't with parents making choices but the misinformation, conspiracy theories and distortion that are very persuasively presented on the proliferating number of anti-vax websites.

After all, you wouldn't not give a child with cancer chemotherapy because you believe in the power of prayer and expect society to say that's OK, right?

7am! I must be mad. I tend to think it all balances out in the end. There is enough information on both sides. I feel for parents like Bruffin, and I think if you have a child tha suffers like that then you could make a decision that goes either way, and that's entirely up to the parent, and not even a doctor or paediatrician could make the decsision for them.

I'm guessing to be qualified to comment you have to be a medical professional involved in administering vaccines or compiling research regarding vaccines. Alternatively you could be an advisor to the government or a minister.

I would prefer to live somewhere that if you don't vaccinate your children aren't welcome in state education, unless your child is one of the few that is advised not to have vaccinations.

You do know whare having no medical choice leads don't you Posie? I'm glad I don't live there.

I'm glad I do. Making vaccination mandatory for public school attendance means children who genuinely can't be vaccinated, especially those who are immunocompromised, can attend school with far less risk.

If you decide not to vaccinate your children against medical advice then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision on others who are not in a position to make that choice.

You can't have it both ways.