I have to put in writing that I am taking responsibility for the risk that my baby might die from not vaccination

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The exact words the nurse spoke!?

I'll put something in writing if that is what they want but not that.

Apparently they have a duty to inform the HV of the risks that I am taking and have I heard the recent news oday of all the babies dying?

I'm bloody cross with this nurse tbh.

I do agree that anyone who makes a choice not to immunise their children should sign some form of consent that they understand the potential consequences which do include death. I don't agree that you should have to sign a disclaimer saying said death is your responsibility though.

You have to consent for any medical intervention done to your child including immunising. Having looked after children who have died or become severely disabled due to diseases for which you can immunise against, if I was a GP (which I'm not) I would feel it was my responsibility as the child's advocate to ensure that the parent deciding not to immunise was fully informed and was aware of the severity of the conditions vaccianted against and the relative safety of vaccination (Nothing is 100% safe and without going into MMR/autism and so on vaccinations can cause anaphylactic reactions, localised skin infections, febrile convulsions and so on and I would want my patient to be aware of the risks and benefits in order to make an informed choice)

On the consent form families sign for some types of paediatric surgery in some of my patients the risk of death is stated as the first on the list of significant complications. Yes of course we hope it won't happen and usually it doesn't and the benefits of the procedure are thought by highly trained medical professionals to outweigh the risks. But we can't ignore the real but small risk of death and families must be aware of that.

I strongly feel that the benefits of vaccinating outweigh the risk in the majority of cases. There is a small risk of preventable death or disability if children are unvaccinated. It's really important that families are aware of that and understand it as part of their decision making process. It's not making you take responsibility, it's not a watching-our-backs exercise, it's a very important part of the process of informed consent.

I'm not necessarily talking about Starlight's position in my above post - as you have questions that are not being answered by your medical team you are not able to give fully informed consent either for or against immunising as there's no way for you to balance the risks and benefits as you don't know for sure what the risks are. In your case your medical team SHOULD be moving hell and high water in order to sort this out for you and I really feel you should push for a referral to a paediatric nephrologist (before a genetecist if anything as if they can show you any new evidence that the vaccination is or isn't safe in this situation you may not even need the genetic tests in the first place (which as well as probably being expensive are often incredibly difficult to process and may lead to your children having to have repeated blood tests))

I didn't mention my disabled ds in my OP as I don't think his particular disability was caused or even triggered (although I cannot say that it definately didn't make his condition worse) by vaccinations.

However, it is relevant to the extent that I know should I have a vaccine-damaged child we would be treated inhumanely, denied medical treatment, essential support and generally be treated as a parasite by society.

It is not only the risk of disability that one needs to consider, which whilst devestating does not come close to injecting misery into a family as the subsequent treatment as a consequence.

Agree with you sallysparrow.

I don't know what your specific concerns are starlight but those articles about renal failure, for example, are all more than 20 years old. Surely a specialist, in this case a nephrologist, would know the current research and how it applies to your family - and also whether the disease itself presents an increased risk for you.

I don't think that's quite true starlight. God forbid it should happen to you, but if you have a vaccine damaged child you are at least entitled to compensation, which is not true of disease damage.

You are not entitled to compensation if your child dies under the age of 2 from a vaccination (you are, if they die age two or older).

And all the people I know with apparently vaccine damaged children have been treated in exactly the way starlight describes. Even those, who after battles lasting many years received compensation for profound damage.

Have any children actually died from vaccination in the Uk in recent memory? I've never heard of any.

Yes, if you read the JABS forum (do be sensitive if you do), then there are a number of people who have received letters saying their claim for compensation cannot be processed because their child was under the age of 2 when they died. I don't suppose they'll exist as an official figure. Some would argue that some cases of SIDS are vaccine related. Officially that doesn't happen.

Other countries are rather better at considering the possibility of a link between a sudden death and a recently given vaccination.

The Torygraph seems to suggest there have been deaths recognised as being due to vaccination (on balance or probabilities) but it's all terrible cloak and dagger.

Yes, quite zzzzzz.

Other than a anti vaccine dodgy website, there is no scientific evidence of a link between SIDS and vaccination. Quite the opposite is true in fact.

There is no need to compensate parents for deaths due to vaccines in the uk since they have not occurred in recent memory.

'I don't think that's quite true starlight. God forbid it should happen to you, but if you have a vaccine damaged child you are at least entitled to compensation, which is not true of disease damage.'

Elaine Firstly you have to prove it, in a society hell-bent on denying it could ever happen. This is very costly in resources and finances, not to mention time for which is in short supply for a parent with a severely disabled child who has been shunned and sent into poverty by their child's disability.

THEN, if you can convince a judge (which happens - even despite the general reluctance of legal teams to take on such cases) the amount awarded is unlikely to even pay for a year of care for the child in question, let alone compensate the parents for the years and years of bringing the case to justice.

And it isn't just a case of proving the jabs caused the disability, in the worst cases it will exist alongside threats of child protection, challenge to parenting skills, dragging up of other medical history of the family, judging and questioning of decisions from what time meals are eaten to how much post is in the porch.

Benefits can be stopped as an anonymous person reports fraudulent claims. Resolved after a stressful investigation, but with not backdating of stopped payments.

I doubt you would believe this Elaine. Most people don't which is why it happens.

It's not cloak and dagger at all.

Elaine I know you assume that all people who have watched their child react to a vaccination are insane lunatics who should be locked away for the safety of others (rather nicely demonstrating zzzz's point) the founder of JABS did eventually (after many years of fighting) get compensation (and official recognition) for her child's vaccine damage. So perhaps she wasn't quite so 'dodgy'.

Anyway, of you want to listen to individual stories (nothing quite like hands in ears la la laing is there) then perhaps follow up with the Japanese ministry of health. I'm not sure there's any reason why Japanese infants should be more susceptible to dying from vaccinations than British ones.

I believe you, starlight, regarding the lack of support for parents of disabled children. I have friends whose children are disabled and, like you point out, they are on the verge of poverty due to the caring responsibilities. it's not fair or just in a developed and rich society.

Regarding vaccines being the cause of such disability, I do think it's extremely rare and I don't think there's a conspiracy to suppress findings or data.

Personally, I think that if your child suffered a disability as a result of a vaccine preventable disease, you might find sympathy thin on the ground although all disabled people are entitled to care and support regardless of the provenance of their disability. You don't get ANY compensation from brain damage due to measles.

Did you read the Torygraph link? The information was obtained after a FOI request. That's hardly easily accessible information.

Civil servants know that freedom of information exists, it's not a secret. Nothing was hidden or buried.

And regarding that Japanese case, has any causation been established? Seems to be in the realms of correlation, epscially since half the babies had serious jnderlying heart conditions, and the Japanese taking the precautionary principle. Kind of like they did with thimerosal which was later shown to have no effect on any vaccine reactions.

I'm not saying anyone is an insane lunatic, I just prefer to look to scientific evidence rather than the unverified experiences of people I don't know.

How strange to think a government should take a precautionary principle. The UK doesn't have a very good record with that. No doubt you believe the UK was entirely reasonable to keep using Urabe strain mumps vaccination.

Our decision not to vaccinate when tiny was based partly on the feeling that we would feel worse if our children died or were severely injured because of something we had done (vaccinate), than something we hadn't done, it was fate or act of God etc.

Our reasons not too vaccinate were the unexplained anaphalactic shock of my sis (only revived because my mother knew paediatric first aid) and petit mal (me), both within an hour of different innoculations at different ages. As with both innnoculations the chances of these fairly serious complication was less than 1 in 1000, the chances of both appearing by chance in siblings was less than 1 in a million. No medical professional has been able to explain the co-occurance of these reactions.

All three have now had MMR, and 2/3 have had DTP, delayed until they were over 3 (whooping cough was the one my sister reacted to, she and I both developed WC anyway when I was 3 and she was 6).

I wouldn't mind writing that down and signing it for any records though.

Elaine you repeatedly portray anyone who believes their child to be vaccine damaged as either mistaken, obtuse or insane. You do it all the time on these threads.

Well I'm quite late to the bunfight party but I did just want to say that I sort of thought Naughtymummy was more or less on Starlight's side. If I was Starlight, I'd make the same decision she has made, because she suspects her child might be disposed to reaction to the vaccine(s). But after a great deal of indecision on my part, I have had my DS immunised (though we are still a jab behind) and really what tipped the balance is that what Naughtymummy says - there are children who can't or shouldn't have the vaccine - I think Starlight's DC are among them - and they offered some protection by 'herd' immunity (awful phrase).

On balance of risks to DS with immunisation vs. non-immunisation, I couldn't decide. I did think he seems pretty tough physically and would probably do alright with the vaccine; I had no reason to think otherwise but at the same time, couldn't get over that idea of Firelight's that you basically have to hand over your firstborn as an experiment in genetic predisposition. But really, there are children who are much more likely to be vulnerable and their protection rests in part with me. Not to mention the otherwise vulnerable that we may come into contact with (inc. preg women, amongst whose number I am recently counted). So the decision about immunisation was made in reference to others as much as we'd considered ourselves, and without that consideration, DS would not be immunised. In that regard, we immunised DS because of the social implications. I recognise that we took a risk with DS, but think also it's a risk not to, and also the risks affect others. So we made our choice. Which I somehow feel bad about, even though he's fine.

What I think is awful is the way that in order to pursue a narrative of safety, the parents of vaccine damaged children have been treated by the NHS and the press like lunatics. I do think there is a tendency to minimalise, dismiss and disregard counter examples in pursuit of this narrative, and it amounts to a cover up whether or not it is intended as such. I was spectacularly unconvinced by my own GPs insistence that she vaccinated her own children - I mean, I really do hope she believes in the institutional practices she's pushing...

if you have any side effects with vaccines (or any other medicines) you can report it to the regulators via the yellow card scheme