Refusing to vaccinate your child

[Organic100]

For a while now I have been researching the dangers of vaccines and all the cases of children dying or being made sick after having a vaccine, all of which is not reported in mainstream media. How do you feel about vaccines? I've heard that the medical profession encourages pregnant women to get the flu vaccine, and that babies are vaccinated at birth. I've also researched stories where parents have been reported to social services by a spiteful doctor or nurse, simply for refusing their child a vaccine. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think?

oh, meant to say, the nurse was reluctant to give me another tetanus jab because having too many 'causes more problems than it may cure' (her words).

I am not keen on extra jabs when they are not necessary, and so had gone in with the intention of talking about whether a jab was truly necessary, so I didn't particularly ask what further problems might be caused by extra tetanus jabs.

It was refreshing to find a nurse advising caution, though (especially since there would appear to be good reason), rather than the more typical 'must have a booster immediately' attitude I have come across more commonly.

So what are you saying bumblebymummy?

This thread is about refusing to vaccinate children.

As for endemic disease if we stopped vaccinating. There may be as many cases as there were pre-vaccine but thankfully there would not be anywhere near as many people dying or being disabled from them thanks to our other medical advances.

This sounds very like an argument against vaccination.

Of course parents must realise that vaccination does not offer 100% protection. I don't know any who think otherwise.

I also don't know any parents who think that not vaccinating their child guarantees that they will die of one of those diseases. I've never heard anyone say that.

It seems to be well understood that vaccination is about reducing the severity and incidence of the diseases and providing herd immunity to protect those who have not been vaccinated.

I now genuinely don't understand whether you are pro or anti vaccination.

It's 5 tetanus jabs in a lifetime to be considered fully covered in the UK

Having a tetanus jab after an injury is pointless for that injury but it is an opportunist moment to vaccinate adults who may not have had 5 vaccinations in their lifetime.

Well, according to the vaccination record that I keep with my passport, I have had 4 tetanus jabs, but was told by the nurse at the travel clinic that I was fully vaccinated and didn't need any more. Confusing or what? I am in the UK so that doesn't explain it.

Well all I can say is that when we do our immunisation training we are referred to the a document called The Green Book over and over again, it is the immunisation bible and it is quite clear in there that a full course of tetanus is for 5 jabs over an appropriate time interval to protect you while living in the UK.

Exotic, I was saying that the number of deaths was decreasing prior to vaccination (thankfully!) It was a huge advance. Vaccination reduced the number of cases. Yet whenever people are trying to persuade people to vaccinate it is the number of deaths they focus on, not the number of deaths in relation to the number of cases that there were at the time.

Thanks cereal, I knew someone on MN had experienced having the upper limit of tetanus vaccines.

Gold, people always seem to want to jump to the 'anti-vax' conclusion. That is nothing like an argument against vaccination - it's pointing out that we now have much better treatments available now than when these diseases were endemic many years ago. So even if there were huge outbreaks again, not as many people would die.

Xbenedict, I think it is also given as a 'booster'at the time of the injury in an attempt to encourage the body to produce antibodies again prior to the infection taking hold.

LaV, if you had the last one within the past 10 years then I think you are classed as up to date...

It is great that we have better treatment available- and in conjunction with vaccination we should have very few deaths.
I am far more interested in preventive medicine and a healthy lifestyle, rather than waiting for something to happen and then treating it.
Good health is the most important thing to anyone, so I can't see what is wrong with the belt and braces attitude-and shall continue to use it.

I had my cat fully vaccinated-my children are far more precious so I can't see the logic in getting the cat protected and not the children!!

Well that's fine exotic, that's your decision. Other people chose differently and are happy to stick to the healthy lifestyle, proper hygeine (including wound hygeine) and trusting their body's own Defense system/ability to fight off illness. Each to their own.

Gold, people always seem to want to jump to the 'anti-vax' conclusion. That is nothing like an argument against vaccination - it's pointing out that we now have much better treatments available now than when these diseases were endemic many years ago. So even if there were huge outbreaks again, not as many people would die.

How is that related to vaccination refusal? The fact that the diseases may be slightly less deadly doesn't change the fact that vaccination offers worthwhile protection and saves lives.

The only valid argument would be when the risk from vaccination exceeded the risk from catching the disease and I doubt very much that the medical community would continue to support vaccination in that scenario.

Fact is that if that boy had had the 5 tetanus shots he would have gotten on the German schedule, it is very unlikely he'd have developed tetanus. He didn't have a single shot before the accident, so I am not sure what you (Bumbley) mean about "getting out of jail free", but certainly mum should thank those doctors in Munich for mopping up the damage of her ill informed decision(s).

Re cats, people weigh up risk of catching disease and the disease itself. Some of the vaccines that people decide against are because the likelihood of a child catching them is very very small (eg. Tetanus) or because the risk to the child from the disease itself is very small (eg rubella). The risk to the cat of contracting the disease may be greater of the risk from the disease may be very high.

You are very lucky to live in the west, bummblymummy and you are free to make that decision because the majority are giving you herd immunity.
Would you really risk taking your DC to the third world with no vaccinations? Or are you just going to cop out with 'we are not going'?
If you had to go-would you choose not to be vaccinated?

And would you have your pets vaccinated?

It was in response to a direct question, Gold. Would those diseases being endemic be as bad as it was back then? No, it wouldn't. If vaccines had never been developed we would still be in a much better place now than we were back then. Imagining not having vaccines in the UK right now isn't as scary a prospect as some people would like you to think it is - and I'm specifically saying UK here because no doubt you will try to compare it to developing countries who have huge numbers of deaths and don't have vaccines (ignoring the poor sanitation, lack of healthcare and poor nutrition that make it an unfair comparison)

Exotic, not sure which vaccines you mean but I would weigh them up on an individual basis (as I outlined above) and base my decision on that. (Same would apply to any pets)

"Other people chose differently and are happy to stick to the healthy lifestyle, proper hygeine (including wound hygeine) and trusting their body's own Defense system/ability to fight off illness. Each to their own."

Living a healthy lifestyle offers no guarantees. It lessens the risks, but there are some diseases that I am not prepared to take the risk on. Each to their own as you say. (I hate that phrase because of the criticism it implies).

I think that nowadays most parents are too young to remember the diseases that we vaccinate against and that makes them too complacent. I was born in 1958 and remember seeing polio afflicted children walking around in calipers. I had measles and it affected my eyesight. I had German measles and whooping cough as well.

In fact, it feels like I spent most of my childhood being ill.

Also, what protection does herd immunity offer against tetanus?

"Also, what protection does herd immunity offer against tetanus?"

None at all. I watched Comic Relief this year and it was heartbreaking watching those children die from tetanus. It brought home how important it is to vaccinate against it and made me realise that we take these modern medical advances so much for granted here.

Vaccines don't offer guarantees either, bunbaker. For some they actually do carry a greater risk than the disease too. I'm using 'each to their own' in a live and let live type of way. No criticism intended. I dislike the way people 'gang up' on these threads.

My sister and I also had measles, WC, mumps, rubella, CP. I barely remember them. I certainly don't feel like they took up most of my childhood!

Exactly bunbaker - none. Exotic mentioned that people don't vaccinate against diseases here because they rely on herd immunity - not the case for tetanus.

bumbley - re tetanus: I am quite sure the nurse told me that was good for life. Maybe I should be worried that she expected me to pop my clogs in the near future!

I had measles, whooping cough, rubella and chicken pox too. Whooping cough was deemed to be 'quite nasty', but other than that, not much. Rubella certainly was almost nothing. I didn't catch mumps when my brother caught it, or maybe I was one who caught it and had no symptoms?

But, there were some sickly individuals who seemed to catch everything going including the diseases they were vaccinated against. Presumably some people must be born with stronger constitutions than others.

Do you refuse routine vaccinations bumble?