does it ever work if one partner is pro vaccination and the othervis anti vaccination?

[superstarheartbreaker]

Just wondering if this issue is a bone of contention or has split anyone up? Ive met a lovely man who wants kids and so do I but for some reason we got talking about vaccinations. He Iis very anti vaccination and hasnt got his kids done whereas im very pro vaccination. For some reason I know this is a big issue for me. Am I being daft? I guesd I just get people who fall for conspiracy theoriescand scaremongering. There are many other qualities about him I do get and admire though. Very early stages so do I carry on?

Consent to immunisation.

Although the consent of one person with parental responsibility for a child is usually sufficient (see Section 2(7) of the Children Act 1989), if one parent agrees to immunisation but the other disagrees, the immunisation should not be carried out unless both parents can agree to immunisation or there is a specific court approval that the immunisation is in the best interests of the child.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/144250/Green-Book-Chapter-2-Consent-PDF-77K.pdf

"'A lot of so called 'vaccine damage' is unproved anyway. The actual links between any of the commonly used vaccines and any adverse effects are almost non existent.'

You are saying vaccine damage does not happen? Seriously? Tell that to vaccine damaged people and the parents of vaccine damaged children. I know that there are a lot of people who see vaccination as holy cow, beyond reproach but that is ridiculous."

Nobody says that vaccine damage never happens. However, just because a parent sincerely believes that their child has been vaccine damaged doesn't mean that they have been. Sadly.

'You are saying vaccine damage does not happen? Seriously? Tell that to vaccine damaged people and the parents of vaccine damaged children. I know that there are a lot of people who see vaccination as holy cow, beyond reproach but that is ridiculous.'

No, I'm saying it's rare - and that many 'grey areas' where parents believe their child's medical condition is vaccine damage, but it is unproved.

Case in point, over 1,000 parents in the UK felt that their child's autism was vaccine damage until it was proved that there is no link to the vaccine (and some still don't believe this!)

Regardless, diseases are a bigger risk than vaccine damage - and are a risk that you take not only for your own child but for every other unvaccinated person that they come into contact with, such as those who have an underlying health condition (and therefore will be far more likely to die of the disease than your child). It's about being socially responsible.

It doesn't mean they haven't been either. I personally think a parent knows their own child. Children don't spectacularly regress for no reason at all.

If you believe that damage from a disease is possible then why would it take such a leap of faith to believe damage from a vaccine is possible?

Lottie, not sure what you'd propose?

At the moment we simply don't know which people may be damaged by vaccines (if they do at all and it's just not coincidence...).

The point is that without the vaccines many, many more people would be damaged.

And what would you propose instead?
There are no drugs against most viruses, isolation measures often come too late, etc.

"If you believe that damage from a disease is possible then why would it take such a leap of faith to believe damage from a vaccine is possible?"

Of course it's possible. Nobody says it isn't.

The social responsibility argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny when in the UK the authorities are unwilling to admit that vaccine damage does happen or to compensate cases where it does happen. And this isn't just about autism by any means.

"It doesn't mean they haven't been either. I personally think a parent knows their own child. Children don't spectacularly regress for no reason at all."

They do, you know. Unvaccinated children do regress.

Children don't spectacularly regress for no reason at all, no. I think that an underlying health condition or learning disability is a reason. I think some parents find that hard to accept.

You can speculate all you like, but the facts show us that a massive majority of those who have vaccinations suffer no (perceived) ill effects, and that the diseases they vaccinate against have a (very real) much, much higher rate of injury and death.

Bottom line is that the 'non vaccinating' brigade only have live and non disabled children because the rest of us act responsibly and have our children vaccinated - not because they refuse the vaccine altogether. All they do through that is put their children at risk, and put other people's much more poorly children at risk.

But do tell me again how you know better than the World Health Organisation!

I am not saying I disagree with vaccinations at all but I can understand why some people might feel cautious if they have a family member who is vaccine damaged (going back to the OP). I'm not sure what the answer is, perhaps less of a one-size-fits-all approach? I also think vaccines are started too young. There is no clinical evidence which supports immunisations being given at 2 months. These policies are made with regard to considering when people go back to work after having a baby rather than what would be best for the health needs of the individual.

When a child goes deaf overnight, obviously something happens to cause that.

'The social responsibility argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny when in the UK the authorities are unwilling to admit that vaccine damage does happen or to compensate cases where it does happen. And this isn't just about autism by any means.'

The social responsibility argument doesn't need scrutiny - if you don't vaccinate your child you put them and children who CAN'T be vaccinated at risk. You are socially irresponsible.

UK authorities are not unwilling to admit it, I'm afraid there is just very little clear evidence - either here or in any other country around the world. If they compensated based on the very sketchy evidence currently available, everybody who believed their child to be vaccine damaged - rightly or wrongly - would be suing the government!

Yes I know that most people will not suffer ill effects from vaccines. But for those that do the consequences for them and their families are devastating.

We live in a world where it is very difficult to get the resources that a mentally impaired person needs and everything is a fight.

Why do you think it was vaccines that caused the damage?

I am not saying I disagree with vaccinations at all but I can understand why some people might feel cautious if they have a family member who is vaccine damaged (going back to the OP). I'm not sure what the answer is, perhaps less of a one-size-fits-all approach? I also think vaccines are started too young. There is no clinical evidence which supports immunisations being given at 2 months. These policies are made with regard to considering when people go back to work after having a baby rather than what would be best for the health needs of the individual.

What utter tosh! They are made so that they can vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society as quickly as possible. Diseases like whooping cough have a higher mortality rate in babies than any other sector of the population.

And parents going back to work has health implications for babies because their parents are being exposed to more viruses and so are they while they are in childcare.

I don't believe in this idea of vaccine damage, certainly not in the manner and form it is being touted.

The parents of children who appear to go deaf overnight or who regress suddenly obviously want answers and want something to blame. Vaccines are the obvious target because of timing but there are no proven links. This "parents know their children best" is utter bollocks.

Yes parents know their children best but they have totally different understandings of science and medicine and they are emotionally invested in looking for a cause. I am at my least rational when it comes to my children being sick or hurt. I'm a very rational person with a good understanding of medicine and science but I still obsessively visit dr google whenever the children have a sniffle.

I didn't have the swine flu vac when pregnant with the twins because I felt it was not adequately tested and I was trapped at home alone as i was too big to move and so was low risk of exposure. I'm not and unthinking blind follower of vaccination.

However, I think it is completely irrational to be anti-vaccination.

My great aunt died from diphtheria weeks before the vaccination program was implemented. I haven't heard of a single child who has been vaccine damaged or died of diphtheria in recent times.

Yes, some people got compo but that is not an acceptance of the truth of their story. Sometimes compo is given because it is cheaper than going to court.

It is not 'utter tosh'. When I asked my GP why babies are vaccinated so young that is what she told me. A HV told me the same thing also.

Lottie, parents going back to work has health implications for children...

You still haven't proposed a viable alternative, even if a small percentage of children are damaged by vaccines, Lottie.

Would you rather regress to a world where the mortality rate in children was extremely high?

A viable alternative would be a modified programme for some children.

Why would they need a modified programme, lottie? How would you modify it?

And I'm sorry but it is utter tosh. Perhaps they were searching around for an explanation to give you other than the blindingly obvious one! Young babies are the most susceptible to the dangerous effects of these diseases. Come on, use your common sense.

OP I think this thread neatly sums up the difficulties you may face. I really feel for you. Is your DP really entrenched in his position or might he be open to debate? As heartisaspade said up thread, a lot of parenting involves making decisions about risk, sometimes where there is a strong argument for one perspective over another, but sometimes where the evidence base is less clear. While it is not impossible to parent with someone whose opinions differ on pretty fundamental issues, I it would be very frustrating, at the very least. In this situation I imagine the dominant personality rather than the best evidenced argument would win the day, which may be to the detriment of any children involved.

I think if you carry on with this man sooner or later your relationship will be very seriously tested as you fight out with him what you are going to do about vaccinating any children you have.

But, as you say it's very early days so it may never even come up.

Pregnant women are currently being advised to vax against whooping cough at 32 weeks, because small babies can't be vaxed and there is an epidemic which could kill them. Because others have not vaxed. And a late vax for their mothers will provide at least some immunity.

My MIL tried to persuade us not to vax DS. When my DH heard this he asked what he'd had, and when he heard "none! They're dangerous, I told you, it's all big business wanting to make money and they knew the pertussis vaccine was dangerous back in the 1970s..." he called his GP and got the lot, asap.

I could never have a relationship with someone who was against vaccination, no. There are some where the evidence is equivocal (chicken pox, for example, which is scheduled in the USA but not given here for cost/benefit reasons, plus the fact that immune adults exposed to chicken pox are believed less likely to get shingles) but the vaccinations in our schedule are important.

My mother worked for the WHO in Papua New Guinea on a study into measles vaccination for the Huli people. She said the women there walked miles to get their babies and children vaccinated and child death rates fell as a direct result. I think the fact we don't see these illnesses anymore makes us complacent. I'm so grateful for modern preventative care, and for our amazing health service, too. It saddens me that we take what are actually enormous privileges so very much for granted.