Mandatory jabs!

[johnhcrf]

Allergic reactions happen in many areas - medicine, food, plants, prefume etc. I am allergic to penicillin as well, but an alternative antibiotic could be used in extremis. Medicines are necessary for many illnesses and allow people to live full lives. Drug companies contribute to the well-being of millions so getting rid of them would be a mistake. They must however be answerable to past errors and their processes must be audited to assure public safety.

[lsm1066]

Perhaps they should be forced to be not-for-profit organisations.

[johnhcrf]

This type of organisation is cetainly a good choice for a wide range of activities. They are not perfect. Some waste funds in salaries etc, rather than for the raison d'etre.

[QuakerBear]

surely the argument could be won by facts not force?

You'd think so, The government are being VERY heavy handed but I think they're trying to protect those children whose parents would opose vacines for silly reasons or out of negligence. I've thinking here of parents who oppose rubella and cervical cancer vaccinations because they think it will make their daughters more sexually active or those who do it for unstated 'religious reasons'.

[Brij]

Out of myself and my two full-sisters, I had the most vaccines. My mum at the time was under the impression that it was the best way to go (and as a first child, she was especially paranoid about my health). Actually, as I understand it, I was one of the first kids to get MMR-vaccined.

That vaccine made me horribly ill, which shocked my mum into being a bit more skeptical about "official" medical advice with my sisters. As a result, my sisters haven't had the full set of vaccines.

However, I've always been the healthiest, suffering less from seasonal viruses, chickenpox, the whole lot - I don't even have any "real" allergies - a few minor reactions to things from time to time is all.

Just one case amongst a huge number, I know, but it just goes to show that it is probably more luck than anything else, so the Gov't should definitely allow parents to follow their gut reactions.

[QuakerBear]

You're all gonna hate me for this but I think most parents are academically unqualified to make a balanced decision. Epidemiology is very complicated and it takes years and years to understand just one disease so how parents who don’t know the difference between virus and bacteria and mean and mode feel able to make a decision I don’t know. Without naming names I’d advise anyone reading this discussion to be vary wary of some of genetics and epidemiology statements made. Also, anecdote is not evidence.

I’m sorry to be so negative and I genuinely don’t want to offend people who love their kids.

[MKG]

Couldn't agree more, QB. But that applies to politicians too. Hands up those who would trust any politician's judgement on such a complicated isssue?

Thought so

[Annpan]

The thing is that there are as many professionals in the field saying we should inoculate as saying don't... you have to break it down into what is important for you, your family and your community.

I knew 2 girls who got measles at age 3 (they are twins) they are now both deaf... that was enough for me to get E her MMR. Also is the doctor who started all the anti-MMR things not been struck off? and admitted that he did not base his comments on fact?
The facts I knew were -
Measles is serious and can make you deaf.
No one has proven anything against MMR.

I also think that it is scary that the percentage of children who are vaccinated is falling, putting our schools and our economy in jeopardy (should a pandemic happen)


As a parent you have to trust your instincts and trust medical professionals.

I don't think that anyone who hasn't had kids can pass any judgement and all that other parents can say is that they choose differently - neither is right or wrong.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Now that we in the developed world are no longer exposed to regular, proper, epidemics of many illnesses we tend to fall into the mindset that we no longer need to worry about them. And in some cases we’re probably safe to do so. For example, who worries about typhoid or cholera? In the “developedâ€

[ina]

Mmh. Still don't know what to think of this. When I was a child, we simply all got measles - and that was the end of it. Nobody died that I knew of, nobody had any complications. (That doesn't mean that didn't happen, of course - just that I can't remember anybody mentioning anything like that.) If in a family one child got measles, the parents made sure the siblings all got it - so they all had it over and done with in one go. That was accepted practice. Don't even know whether vaccines were around for that; same with rubella and mumps.

My common sense tells me that it might be a good idea to vaccinate - but does it have to be all three in one go? I'd say everybody could understand that having three diseases at once might be a bit much for anybody; wouldn't three vaccines at once also mean a bit of an overload?

[red]

I don’t think that there should be compulsion on parents to vaccinate, except perhaps where there is a genuine need for reasons of public health, and those would be rare occurrences indeed these days.

But there is sometimes a very poor understanding of the risk / benefit balance behind vaccination. The link between MMR and autism is frequently brought up, not as an hypothesis, but as fact. This, despite the original study being utterly discredited and subsequent work finding nothing at all linking the two. OK, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but something usually flags up under intense scrutiny if it is there to find. Parents could be given more and better information that presented the whole picture rather than that of jab, jab, jab away.

.

yes - the government/s should be spendin our money not on pressuring parents, but by providing better information. The better informed, the better the decision

[red]

You're all gonna hate me for this but I think most parents are academically unqualified to make a balanced decision. .

oo - whilst you might be correct.. I shy away form the notion that someone other than the parents make these decisions. where do you stop? bit.. big brother...

the other thing to remember is the government lie. Take whooping cough.. at the age that the vax was given to kids.. the danger for them from whooping cough had passed the real danger was to babies.

so.. they vax the older kids and the babies are less likely to get it. so statistically death from whooping cough decreased. however there was a risk with the vax... so the individual child was taking a known by the government but not spelt out risk, by taking the vax but would not actually benefit personally from it.

[Millymollymandy]

Mmh. Still don't know what to think of this. When I was a child, we simply all got measles - and that was the end of it. Nobody died that I knew of, nobody had any complications. (That doesn't mean that didn't happen, of course - just that I can't remember anybody mentioning anything like that.) If in a family one child got measles, the parents made sure the siblings all got it - so they all had it over and done with in one go. That was accepted practice. Don't even know whether vaccines were around for that; same with rubella and mumps.

My common sense tells me that it might be a good idea to vaccinate - but does it have to be all three in one go? I'd say everybody could understand that having three diseases at once might be a bit much for anybody; wouldn't three vaccines at once also mean a bit of an overload?

Hear hear Ina - I think I had German measles as a kid and then was vaccinated against it age about 12 at school. Pretty bloody pointless - they might as well have vaccinated us when we were babies so that we didn't have to catch it!

Our cats get a whopping load of vaccine all at once every year for 4 different diseases (rabies, leukemia and 2 x cat flu viruses) and they don't get affected by it.

[baldowrie]

Annpan

Also is the doctor who started all the anti-MMR things not been struck off

I think so. I know he was taken to court over professional misconduct charges.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

You're all gonna hate me for this but I think most parents are academically unqualified to make a balanced decision. .

oo - whilst you might be correct.. I shy away form the notion that someone other than the parents make these decisions. where do you stop? bit.. big brother...

the other thing to remember is the government lie. Take whooping cough.. at the age that the vax was given to kids.. the danger for them from whooping cough had passed the real danger was to babies.

so.. they vax the older kids and the babies are less likely to get it. so statistically death from whooping cough decreased. however there was a risk with the vax... so the individual child was taking a known by the government but not spelt out risk, by taking the vax but would not actually benefit personally from it.

OK - but there are lots of things we do that we do not necessarily benefit from directly but which do benefit society as a whole.

Taking your whooping cough example - a large outbreak of this uncomfortable but normally non-fatal condition would nonetheless consume considerable medical resource.

The same would be true of a measles epidemic. Or mumps. Or diptheria. Now, if medical staff are occupied with children - and children would rightly take priority - other people will have to wait longer. And a small number of children - about 1 in 1000 would die.

Add in the time that parents have to take off work (cold blooded perhaps, but an issue nonetheless) and the distress caused to both adult & child, and avoiding the illness to me looks highly desirable.

Preventative medicine is, in my view, always preferable.

Heck we could extend the arguement: I'm 41. The all probability the effects of global warming are unlikely to impact hugely in my lifetime. Why should I bother trying to change anything?