How do you respond to "social responsibility" ?

[asoulunbound]

I'm interested in a thoughtful logical response to things I've read or encountered like the idea that non vaxing only works because so many people vax, etc- herd mentality.

[CallMeMommy]

I'd ask them which diseases they're thinking of. Usually they'll throw out polio or pertussis, to which I respond that those vaccines aren't designed to prevent transmission and you'll still contract the disease even if you're fully vaccinated. That usually throws them for a loop for a while.

[Emmeline II]

Originally Posted by asoulunbound

I'm interested in a thoughtful logical response to things I've read or encountered like the idea that non vaxing only works because so many people vax, etc- herd mentality.

They are two different ideas. HI is the theory, and social responsibility is whether you are obligated to participate in it.

People that say "non vaxing only works because so many people vax" are assuming that the non-vaxer wishes to avoid VADs, and/or is relying on the herd instead of supporting the child's immune system.

[Sileree]

I would reply that I might feel somewhat more inclined to participate in this "social contract" if:
-the risks to vaccination were not systematically downplayed or denied by doctors and those in power and there was open, honest discussion of this
-the risks of the diseases were not made out to be worse than they are, again, open, honest discussion of this
-if the science that is needed to be done urgently was begun immediately by independent scientists
-if the VICP had not turned into the circus it is today, where parents have to fight for up to ten years to get a measly compensation while their children are damaged for life, and nearly all reactions are denied and fought by the HHS

The way the system is today is a crock. I am being lied and bullied to vaccinate, but if my kid got damaged I am basically on my own.

I still don't feel like I would sacrifice my kid for "the common good," but it would be a good start. I think if those in power want us to participate, they have to put just as much effort into it to make it a real "social contract". The responsibility should not be all on the parents' side.

[Arduinna]

If they are so confidant that vaxing works, then why are they afraid unvaxers? After all they are protected right?

[grumpybear]

This may be selfish and not the p.c. answer but I feel that I am primarily responsible for (to) my child first. All the rest comes a far second to that.

[a-sorta-fairytale]

I say that my social responsibility is to keep my kid home when she is sick AND do all i can to keep her healthy so she isnt spreading ANY sickness. Part of how i keep her healthy is by NOT overpowering her immune system with vaccines. So, by not vaxing i am doing my part

I think it is a social responsibility that if you *DO* vax you should know which vaxes your kid gets that shed. Then, YOU should keep your kid home until there is no more risk of spreading that disease. We all know that doesnt happen though, in my dd's pre-k class last year all the kids came right to school after being vaxed.

There is so much to social responsibility i think vaxing is only one small component. But, doing my part, i keep my kids out of public when they have a stomach bug, or measles or anything highly contagious.

[4Blessings]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

If they are so confidant that vaxing works, then why are they afraid unvaxers? After all they are protected right?

True for healthy "normal" children. However, I've had people come back at me with, "What about children who are too unhealthy to receive vaccinations? Those with allergies or cancer or some other health issue? Aren't you putting them at risk?"


That's one question that I have trouble answering when it comes to my choice not to vaccinate my healthy children (we delay and are selective).

[Emmeline II]

Originally Posted by Proud2BeAnAmerican

True for healthy "normal" children. However, I've had people come back at me with, "What about children who are too unhealthy to receive vaccinations? Those with allergies or cancer or some other health issue? Aren't you putting them at risk?"


That's one question that I have trouble answering when it comes to my choice not to vaccinate my healthy children (we delay and are selective).

You could try "aren't you? When was your last vaccination?"

Ultimately, I am doing my best not to have MY children, be one of those children. Vaccines are drugs that can negative consequences such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, brain damage, and death. My child has the right not to have their healthy body made into a chronically diseased one. Vaccine damage is 100% preventable, all disease (as there are numerous diseases that do not have vaccines) is not; immune compromised people will always be at risk.

[zinemama]

I honestly don't have a good answer for that.

One of the reasons I am comfortable delaying vaccines is because current rates of these diseases are so low. Looking at the numbers of measles cases last year, for example, I have almost zero expectation that my kid will get it. I'm not specifically looking for my kid to avoid it (we had chicken pox, no problem) but if he were to get measles, I wouldn't be all "Woo hoo! Measles!" But as it stands, I don't think it will ever be an issue.

And yes, I do attribute that to vaccination, among other things.

I do feel that herd immunity is protecting my kids from some VPDs. For me, this is a problematic moral position. But delaying/selective is the choice I am most comfortable with for my particular kid.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

You could try "aren't you? When was your last vaccination?"

Ultimately, I am doing my best not to have MY children, be one of those children. Vaccines are drugs that can negative consequences such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, brain damage, and death. My child has the right not to have their healthy body made into a chronically diseased one. Vaccine damage is 100% preventable, all disease (as there are numerous diseases that do not have vaccines) is not; immune compromised people will always be at risk.

My grandpa was sick and guess who got to see him in his last days? The vaccine free grandkids as they had no symptoms of record of exposure. The hospital wouldn't let the recently vaxed kids go near him.

That spoke volumes to me as a little kid.

As for what to do when someone brings up the herd mentality myth, I usually just dump 3-4 pages of links in their lap. If it's in person, I'd either ask them to show me which disease is eradicated (they always turn to smallpox which I can deflect) or I'd talk about DTaP and Pertussis b/c everyone I ever bump into is always terrified of Pertussis. Or they know someone who died of Tetanus. Never ever without fail.

[a-sorta-fairytale]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

My grandpa was sick and guess who got to see him in his last days? The vaccine free grandkids as they had no symptoms of record of exposure. The hospital wouldn't let the recently vaxed kids go near him.

That spoke volumes to me as a little kid.

This reminds me of when my much younger sister was a baby. They told my mom that after she got her shots she should not be around anyone who was immunocompromised for a week!

[lovbeingamommy]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

If they are so confidant that vaxing works, then why are they afraid unvaxers? After all they are protected right?

:

This is exactly the type of statement I'll make when someone brings up the "social responsibility" argument. Most people that "discuss" this issue with me for lack of a better word "shut up" after a few minutes because I'm quite good at debating my viewpoint on vaxes. The people I've encountered that have vaxxed really don't seem ready to defend their stance on vaxxing with any hard evidence other than well everybody I know does it. Ok

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

If they are so confidant that vaxing works, then why are they afraid unvaxers? After all they are protected right?

Well, not all of them are protected.

Kids under 12 months haven't gotten the MMR, for instance. My unvaxed 7yo could catch measles and communicate it to an infant. I would feel terrible if that happened. Is it likely, given the prevalence of measles? Not so much. But it's a possibility and a valid point for anyone with an infant to make. I don't understand why some of us non-vaxers are so unwilling to acknowledge that.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Well, not all of them are protected.

Kids under 12 months haven't gotten the MMR, for instance. My unvaxed 7yo could catch measles and communicate it to an infant. I would feel terrible if that happened. Is it likely, given the prevalence of measles? Not so much. But it's a possibility and a valid point for anyone with an infant to make. I don't understand why some of us non-vaxers are so unwilling to acknowledge that.

Well I know for me, the reason I am unwilling to buy it is because everyone is a disease carrier.

The underlying assumption in fearing vaccine-free children is that they are the vectors for disease in our society.

That is not true. Seroconversion and "immunity" are not guaranteed for anyone, and seeing as how the majority of people do not pay attention to titres, and with the adult population at large barely hitting a single digit booster rate, the fear is discriminatory and unhelpful. Furthermore, some vaccines do not even work to prevent transmission.

If I bumped into someone who didn't want vaccinated and vaccine free children near her child until her child was fully vaccinated and tested, then I would admire the consistency.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by Proud2BeAnAmerican

True for healthy "normal" children. However, I've had people come back at me with, "What about children who are too unhealthy to receive vaccinations? Those with allergies or cancer or some other health issue? Aren't you putting them at risk?"


That's one question that I have trouble answering when it comes to my choice not to vaccinate my healthy children (we delay and are selective).

I have allergies and I am a cancer survivor. We were no vax before this and we are still no vax. In fact my oncologist made me stay away from the recently vaxed during chemo because they were a risk to ME due to shedding.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Well, not all of them are protected.

Kids under 12 months haven't gotten the MMR, for instance. My unvaxed 7yo could catch measles and communicate it to an infant. I would feel terrible if that happened. Is it likely, given the prevalence of measles? Not so much. But it's a possibility and a valid point for anyone with an infant to make. I don't understand why some of us non-vaxers are so unwilling to acknowledge that.

I lean much more to the anarchist than the socialist side of the fence.

Me and mine first, although I do support charitable causes ect not to the point that I will give up my God given freedom of choice on what to put into my body. I don't respond to collective guilt either. So those arguments aren't effective on me.

[SunshineJ]

Honestly I generally won't bother with a long discussion; it's usually clear they have their minds made up. Instead I answer with something like "You realize many vaccines like the MMR are live virus vaccinations and that any recently vaxxed child is as likely if not more so to give someone something like measles, right? Besides, it's not like unvaxxed children are seething hotbeds of vaccine preventable diseases just waiting to spring out and open up on the unsuspecting public!" Then I laugh, shake my head and walk away leaving the person looking dumbfounded and a bit embaressed.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

They are two different ideas. HI is the theory, and social responsibility is whether you are obligated to participate in it.

People that say "non vaxing only works because so many people vax" are assuming that the non-vaxer wishes to avoid VADs, and/or is relying on the herd instead of supporting the child's immune system.

yep. bugs the shi-atte out of me.

[member234098]

Edited by member234098 - 6/11/12 at 7:05am