Can I ask the people who are anti-vac, how do you feel about the smallpox vaccine, do you think that was right? Would you have had it?

[Kendodd]

I suppose the same (ish) question could apply to the polio vaccine, I believe there is an eradication programme for that. Hopefully it'll be successful.

Rosewind, of course the diseases that vaccines prevent are a concern but, to me, not as big a concern as the moral dilemma.

I'm more concerned about the moral issues of vaccinating my chid to protect another child and this is a particular concern for diseases like rubella, mumps, whooping cough, even measles is most dangerous in those too young to be vaccinated.

Less than 300 cases of polio in the world last year, none in Europe, come on, what are the chances of my child catching polio. I'll take the risk.

Ok, lets take the premise that homeopathy is a placebo that works, even that is better than the effect of most medicines that are prescribed. The other day I had a minor ailment, went to the doctor and was prescribed two medicines, took them and got an allergic reaction, the doctor's surgery was closed by the time I got back so I looked them up on the internet, one of the possible side-effects of one of the medicines he had prescribed was death. Some would say that that might have been only one in a million (I'm sure you will) but the doctor didn't even ask me if I wanted to take a chance with my life for something that, as it was, did get better on its own.

Apparently, 90% of polio cases have only mild symptoms. (From Rosewind's link). Would I have a polio jab now? No, as Europe was declared polio free some years ago.

If polio made a comeback here? Maybe I would, but the 90% figure would influence me quite a lot I think.

I would like to know how many anti-vaccinators are themselves not vaccinated. Most of them seem happy to expose their children to risks that they do not run. (recognising that some children cannot be vaccinated).

I would also like to know how many of them have seen cases of the diseases that are prevented by vaccination. Just a picture of a smallpox case totally horrifies me.

frontdoorstep - lucky you and me, living in a polio-free continent. Now, how did it get that way?

BTW do not let your child leave Europe without vaccination, and make sure that they are aware of their vulnerability when they are older and you no longer control where they are. Oh, and keep them away from the nappies of vaccinated babies - so if your child chooses to go into child care or does any babysitting, they need to be aware of this small but non-negligible risk.

presume no tetanus vaccination either? Better keep them out of the garden...

What is wrong with nappies, or is that a question best left unanswered? Are you talking about rotavirus?

Specialsubject, thanks, I'm aware of the risk from nappies, although I thought that was only from the oral polio vaccine. Was n't this a case of someone who has been vaccinated posing a danger to someone else?

"diseases like rubella, mumps, whooping cough, even measles is most dangerous in those too young to be vaccinated."

Yes - which is why keeping the incidence right down in the rest of the population protected you when pg and your children when they were babies. Your children then, and now, incur the low risk of catching these diseases (that presumably informs and to an extent enables your choice not to vx) precisely because of the others who vaccinate.

I understand and support those with the specific contraindications over vx- families with auto-immune conditions, babies that were on abs at birth, those with particular allergies - but really, outside those groups, what is the risk? And for those groups, and the babies, and the immune-supressed, it's important that we vaccinate. A policy that protects our own children as babies.

We all used to get measles, it was not a mild illness. I lay feeling as ill as ill in a darkened room for 3 weeks, with my mother off work and enduring sleepless nights. I know a person who is deaf as a result.

Moral dilemma? Or complacency made affordable on others' moral choices?

Not vaccinating is not a moral dilemma it is a complete cop-out of society. Anyone who does not vaccinate when they can should not be allowed to get any benefits, free eductaion or access to the NHS - if you want to benefit from society, then you have to join in.

So true caroldecker.

Caroldecker, they probably don't make it compulsory because many people don't claim benefits, don't use state education and have private healthcare. These people wouldn't care if they were denied the things you mentioned and it would then mean that the people who had to vaccinate were the poorer members of society because their only options would be benefits, state education and the NHS. That would be another moral dilemma.

I think it is morally unsupportable for most parents not to vaccinate (dependent on particular contraindications etc) - but I couldn't support enforced vaccination either.

The "nappies" issue is relevant if you are in a place which still uses oral polio immunisations, as the it is shed by faeces and can cause the infection. The injectable version (the only kind available on NHS for the last decade or so) does not carry that risk.

The kill rate of small pox was around 70-80%. But the disease was under control by 1960s in many parts of Europe (jab no longer routine for infants in Uk from about mid 60s).

Frontdoorstep - yes I would. I accept the risk to my child for the greater good. It's a quid pro quo. I do my bit, you do yours, we all benefit. Same as taxation, benefits etc. If you don't want to live in a mutually beneficial society I suggest you go live somewhere rather more anarchist without the safety net of benefits and vaccines and a national health service - the 15th century say, and risk your child getting smallpox.

Frontdoorstep - me too (accept risk to my child and accept others' risk for mine in turn). I passionately believe that our lives and well being are inextricably intertwined with one another. I hope my children will share my values when they're older.

In the US you have to prove your children have been vaccinated to use daycare.

Me too. I take a minuscule risk with my my children for both their good and the greater good. Entirely normal behaviour.

bleachedwhale, herd immunity to whooping cough does not exist.

"bleachedwhale, herd immunity to whooping cough does not exist."

It does. However, because whooping cough is a bacterial infection, and can be present in people who have no symptoms, a much hight rated of immunity is needed for "herd immunity". I think (from memory)that 80%ish of the population needs to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity to a virus but it has to be over 90% for herd immunity to whooping cough.

Frontdoor - which is why as many children as possible need to be vaccinated, so that those who are not yet, or who cannot be due to auto-imune issues are as protected as possible. That is the whole purpose of a vaccination program.

If you are going to object to something, that is your prerogative. But at least have a courtesy to find out what you are objecting to and its intended purpose before you opt out and potentially put others at risk.

when push comes to shove, who would risk their child for someone else.

Erm, in this context, the vast majority of us. And offered the choice, I firmly believe that the vast majority of DC's would opt to take that risk themselves, rather than cause the death of a classmate.

Martorana, vaccine immunity to whooping cough wanes after a few years. (some studies have shown that it starts to wane in as little as 12 months) How can you have herd immunity to something when the population are not immune?

Also, the current vaccination targets for herd immunity are 95%.

Re. risking your child. Most people are not vaccinating for the sake of other people. They are vaccinating because they want to protect their child and they think there is very little risk to the vaccine. The fact that they are contributing to 'herd immunity' is an added bonus. I doubt you would get as many people vaccinating their child for the benefit of another if the benefit to the child themselves was zero and they thought there was a risk in having the vaccine.

Well said Bumbleymummy! Re. risking your own child...

I'm all for society but risking my own child for the common good is a step too far.

I have seen a girl with full blown congenital rubella - that vaccine was a total no brainer for me, for both kids, also my son (add the knowledge that in Japan, it's often sons and husbands that infect mums and wives with rubella...). It is a selfish choice - I don't want to live with the guilt, I don't want my children to kill another child.

The mother could protect her unborn child. It does not make sense to rely on strangers - they may not be immune even if they were vaccinated.

because it is always somebody else's fault... I maintain:

I don't want to live with the guilt, I don't want my children to kill another child.