How do you respond to "social responsibility" ? - Page 3

[Emmeline II]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

I vaccinate, and "social responsibility" (or rather for me herd immunity, which i do believe in, "social responsibility" implies social irresponsibility on the part of non-vaxers which to me is just not the case at all) is one of my important reasons for doing so. This is somewhat because a childhood friend died of measles when she was being treated for cancer which she contracted from a non-vaxed child - to be clear it was the HOSPITAL'S fault for exposing her to this child, NOT the parents of that child, who were to blame. But still, it left a deep impression on me.

So, if this friend had caught measles from a recently vaxed child (who are not supposed to visit patients undergoing cancer treatment either) you would have been influenced the other way?

And if your child were harmed by vaccinations, that would just be unfortunate because they are supposedly at lesser risk of being harmed by vaccines than a cancer patient by disease?

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by MissRubyandKen

I would ask them if they were fully vaccinated against all diseases they believed herd immunity applied to, if they continued to get boosters as needed, and/or checked titers when immunity from the vaccination was likely to have waned. If they are so concerned with your child's social responsibility to take the risks associated with vaccinating, what about their own? Then I would ask them if they stay home when ill and keep their children home when ill, if they would stay home when vaccinated with live vaccines that can shed and keep their children home when vaccinated with live vaccines that can shed. If they are concerned with protecting immune compromised and elderly individuals they should do everything they can to take those steps. If we have a social responsibility to not pass on sickness, including vpds, shouldn't everyone be included in the responsibility, not just small children? Why should babies and small children be the ones to have the social responsibility to accept the risks of vaccination to prevent sickness, medical bills, and/or death within our society when adults so often do not do what they responsibly can to not spread sickness that can cause death and doctor/hospital bills too. Its ridiculous to expect the smallest of us to shoulder a greater burden of responsibility.

I kid you not, one of the first debates I had online was with a man who told me point blank that my daughter had to be vaccinated and had to take the risk of allergies (I had shared my experience) so that he didn't have to [take the risk of vaccination].

It was eerie and reminded me of Titanic, when the men fought to get on the lifeboats ahead of the women and children.

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

So, if this friend had caught measles from a recently vaxed child (who are not supposed to visit patients undergoing cancer treatment either) you would have been influenced the other way?

And if your child were harmed by vaccinations, that would just be unfortunate because they are supposedly at lesser risk of being harmed by vaccines than a cancer patient by disease?

I'm confused b/c aren't the measles combo vaccines available in the US live virus vaccines?

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

So, if this friend had caught measles from a recently vaxed child (who are not supposed to visit patients undergoing cancer treatment either) you would have been influenced the other way?

And if your child were harmed by vaccinations, that would just be unfortunate because they are supposedly at lesser risk of being harmed by vaccines than a cancer patient by disease?

I have no idea. My friend was 6, i was 5 and she was in remission and going to be getting better and then dead one day. I can't say how this would have affected me if it were a different scenario. I can only know how the scenario as it was affected me. I can remember the day she died very vividly, as we had gone to visit, not knowing how sick she was, and she died just before we got there (which was fortunate as my mum was like a mother to HER mum). The hospital was at fault, the child was admitted with encephalitis, suspected meningitis, and they didn't realise she had measles until several other children had shared a room with her. Our friend was in for her last chemo session and a few nights of inpatient care as she was very thin and though in remission she was about as sick as chemo can make you. The child in question had been on holiday and missed her measles vaccine (not for any other reason, they just forgot to reschedule) some years previously and her mother was devastated by the whole thing, from her child being so sick to our friend dying. It wasn't the MMR she would have received, this was in 1985 and the child had missed the age-4 vaccine and was 9 when she got measles. I'm not sure about live vs non-live then (UK 1980) either.

If my child were harmed by a vaccination it would be very unfortunate, but I have made the best decision i can with the information i currently have. And currently (i am not psychic or pretending to be so!) it is the best decision for my family. Life is not without risk. I believe what i have chosen minimises risk, you believe differently, but that is absolutely ok with me, and i'm glad we both have the opportunity/freedom to do what we think is right for our families (though i'm in the UK and i understand that in some places they FORCE vaccines on people, which doesn't happen here, and i think is despicable).

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

I have no idea. My friend was 6, i was 5 and she was in remission and going to be getting better and then dead one day. I can't say how this would have affected me if it were a different scenario. I can only know how the scenario as it was affected me. I can remember the day she died very vividly, as we had gone to visit, not knowing how sick she was, and she died just before we got there (which was fortunate as my mum was like a mother to HER mum). The hospital was at fault, the child was admitted with encephalitis, suspected meningitis, and they didn't realise she had measles until several other children had shared a room with her. Our friend was in for her last chemo session and a few nights of inpatient care as she was very thin and though in remission she was about as sick as chemo can make you. The child in question had been on holiday and missed her measles vaccine (not for any other reason, they just forgot to reschedule) some years previously and her mother was devastated by the whole thing, from her child being so sick to our friend dying. It wasn't the MMR she would have received, this was in 1985 and the child had missed the age-4 vaccine and was 9 when she got measles. I'm not sure about live vs non-live then (UK 1980) either.

If my child were harmed by a vaccination it would be very unfortunate, but I have made the best decision i can with the information i currently have. And currently (i am not psychic or pretending to be so!) it is the best decision for my family. Life is not without risk. I believe what i have chosen minimises risk, you believe differently, but that is absolutely ok with me, and i'm glad we both have the opportunity/freedom to do what we think is right for our families (though i'm in the UK and i understand that in some places they FORCE vaccines on people, which doesn't happen here, and i think is despicable).

OMG She had encephalitis and suspected meningitis, and she was walking around visiting people?

When DH had encephalitis (from this vaccine) as a kid, he was found nonresponsive and ended up in the hospital for months.

Plus meningitis?

Gah, the adults in this situation really dropped the ball!!!

[GoBecGo]

She wasn't visiting, she was admitted unconscious to the same children's ITU. She didn't have meningitis, just encephalitis from the measles, but she and our friend shared a room for about 2 hours while they were trying to diagnose her. There were 5 kids in total in there and 2 (my friend and another) contracted measles from her. The other who got it was in there following surgery of some kind. He recovered fine.

And yes, the hospital made a complete mess of this! They were having some sort of issue (staffing? Not sure) otherwise an immuno-supressed child would NEVER have been in that same room, but the measles child didn't have the rash yet, it was the middle of the night, and the person who admitted made a terrible error.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Should we get measles or chickenpox, there is a good chance I will know when my child/ren were exposed, and I could keep them at home accordingly. This will not work in the event of my child being exposed to the disease without my expecting it, when he would be contagious before I know he had the disease.

Well, that's the thing: your plan probably wouldn't work. The incubation period for chickenpox is 21 days. By the time my kids got it, three weeks had passed since they were exposed and I have no idea where it happened. With measles it's 8-10 days. So why do you think there's a "good chance" you would know when your kids are exposed?

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Well, that's the thing: your plan probably wouldn't work. The incubation period for chickenpox is 21 days. By the time my kids got it, three weeks had passed since they were exposed and I have no idea where it happened. With measles it's 8-10 days. So why do you think there's a "good chance" you would know when your kids are exposed?

According to my research, measles is not contagious during the incubation period, and cp is only contagious for 2 days before the pox first appear. So, there is a fairly good chance that any of us would know when their child was exposed.

ETA: And we would also know when to keep them home to avoid further spreading of the disease during its contagious period.

[member234098]

.

 

Edited by member234098 - 6/11/12 at 7:02am

[yogamonkeyjo]

Although I think that this is a somewhat inaccurate and oversimplified statement, it's one that seems to work as a quick answer to people who you don't want to bother educating:

"Herd immunity=good for the herd, bad for the horse"

It's the quick explanation my grumpy old school doc uses.

[claddaghmom]

That reminds me of the story about how they cleared the tables of MRSA patients and then brought in labouring women!

Gah!!!

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

She wasn't visiting, she was admitted unconscious to the same children's ITU. She didn't have meningitis, just encephalitis from the measles, but she and our friend shared a room for about 2 hours while they were trying to diagnose her. There were 5 kids in total in there and 2 (my friend and another) contracted measles from her. The other who got it was in there following surgery of some kind. He recovered fine.

And yes, the hospital made a complete mess of this! They were having some sort of issue (staffing? Not sure) otherwise an immuno-supressed child would NEVER have been in that same room, but the measles child didn't have the rash yet, it was the middle of the night, and the person who admitted made a terrible error.

[asoulunbound]

thank you for all the responses. was definitely not trying to cause a row. i have been very busy and hadn't been able to log in. I think my fav was good for the herd bad for the horse!
I feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle- I'm the only non vaxer I know. Fortunately dh had a change of heart and is on board. I'm grateful for all the information provided on this site.

[asoulunbound]

nak btw!

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Well, that's the thing: your plan probably wouldn't work. The incubation period for chickenpox is 21 days. By the time my kids got it, three weeks had passed since they were exposed and I have no idea where it happened. With measles it's 8-10 days. So why do you think there's a "good chance" you would know when your kids are exposed?

My plan would not work if my child caught measles in public without my knowledge. Where I live that is highly unlikely. I realise I will have to look for measles and will probably be intentionally exposing my child to measles - knowing exactly when he was exposed and doing the math accordingly with regards to keeping him at home.

ETA: My plan could not work for the days that my child is contagious without my knowledge, if that does indeed happen. As soon as he is sick, he will be at home. Which makes it about a day, maybe two, that he could be contagious without my knowledge. Not ideal. I know that.

Measles is highly contagious and can be transmitted from four days before the rash becomes visible to four days after the rash appears.

It takes an average of 10-12 days from exposure to the first symptom, which is usually fever. The measles rash doesn't usually appear until approximately 14 days after exposure, 2-3 days after the fever begins.

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/measles/qandadis.asp

I am not saying this is a perfect plan. It is the best I can do given that the MMR is not an option I am considering for my family.

I do feel a responsibility to do the best I can to keep a contagious child out of public. I definitely would not take a child with suspected measles anywhere public, and I definitely would be communicating my suspicion that he has measles should he require medical care. And if I can pinpoint the day of his exposure, I have a very good chance of managing the disease responsibly at home.

I do not think it is accurate to say that families who choose not to vaccinate are irresponsible. Vaccines are not a full proof alternative. It is not a choice between the safest most effective option (vaccinate) and the irresponsible one (don't vaccinate). Vaccines do fail, and families who do not vaccinate can minimise the risks.

I know that there are risks associated with my choice, and not just for my child. I am not trying to run away from that.

However, for me to vaccinate with the MMR, I would have to ignore the fact that the safety of the vaccine has yet to be studied (There is no evidence in the medical literature that this is indeed a safe vaccine, beyond HCP's assurance/opinion that it is. There is also no evidence in the medical literature that it is not safe. There is very little evidence at all of the safety, either way).

I would have to ignore my preference that my daughter has measles as a child, at a time when the disease poses the lowest risk for healthy children, ensuring that when she is a mother herself one day, she passes on the best protection to her infant. My son would also benefit from the disease during his childhood, as he has a better chance for longer immunity, and less chance of contracting the disease as an adult.

In case it is not clear. I do not think there is a perfect solution. I am being the most responsible I can be given the choices I am making.

There are loopholes in the vaccine induced herd immunity to measles too. That is also not a perfect solution. It is not an alternative that guarantees anything.

Some people feel more comfortable taking their risk with the vaccine. Other people feel more comfortable taking their risk with the disease. There is no risk free, perfect solution. Each choice is equally valid IMO.

[emma1325]

I would say that a vaccinated child is not necessarily an immune child, and a non-vaccinated child is not necessarily an non-immune child.

Only titers can determine immunity. Shot status does not mean a child cannot catch and spread illness.

Some vaccines aren't even known to prevent transmission, so a vaccinated child can catch it and spread it just as easily as a non-vaccinated child.

[japonica]

The social responsibility card is something that often gets waved in front of non-vaxing parents to make others feel better about their own choices. As in, "I fully vaccinated my own child on schedule, you should too, it's your responsibility." Or, "I'm pregnant but didn't get my titers checked beforehand or get a pre-conception check up. Now it's your responsibility to vaccinate your child for rubella to protect me."

This whole social contract is flawed on a number of levels, already pointed out. It assumes that vaccination=immunity, which we know is not often the case. It assumes that vaccinated individuals cannot be pinpointed in outbreaks and cannot be transmitting illness. It assumes that everyone in society is up to date on their boosters (as pointed out, all those adults telling me to get my kids vaccinated, when did they have their last boosters). It assumes that all of the vaccines themselves prevent transmission, which we know is untrue.

That's a lot of assumptions for a social contract.

And while I do feel for those who are immuno-compromised or immuno-suppressed, I do not feel that the health status of the population as a whole is MY responsibility. It's just not. People are responsible for their own well being and if that means they want to vaccinate their children and get their own boosters, and are able to, then they're welcome to it. If I were in a situation where my immunity to questionable and I was at risk, I would really be evaluating my daily life for concrete measures under my control to keep myself healthy and not relying on others and hoping they "did the right thing."

And social responsibility goes both ways. Shedding vaxes. Serotype replacement...thanks to vaccines, we now have new emergent strains to contend with. It's a much more complex issue than just "an unvaxed child is a danger to the social fabric of the community."

[GoBecGo]

The thing i really take issue with (i posted above about my thoughts on vaxing and reasons) is the "i'm doing this and you should to" attitude. Who on EARTH actually believes they have the ability, let alone the right, to prescribe the "best" approach for SOMEONE ELSE'S child? I mean we're not talking about a clear-cut issue here, it's really complex and often difficult to navigate. I have enough trouble making and rationalising my OWN parenting decisions, and i certainly couldn't take the risk with someone else's kid. I really think the person who says "you should do this too" hasn't thought enough about their choice, i believe i have found the best path for MY family, i know i've done enough research to realise that one size does not and will not fit all.

I guess it's like every other parenting choice, there's always SOMEone who thinks they know better...

[japonica]

Yup, I agree with you there. No one can make those decisions for anyone else and every family is different as are their circumstances. That's why blanket policies like mandatory vaccination (and the associated belief in social responsibility) are so problematic. I met two moms who started their own natural parenting playgroup because once the other moms in their former playgroup found out, they were asked to leave...they were seen as "endangering" the other kids. And yeah, "shoulds" are not helpful most of the time, but especially with complex issues like these.

[lemonapple]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

Who on EARTH actually believes they have the ability, let alone the right, to prescribe the "best" approach for SOMEONE ELSE'S child?

*sigh* Our government...

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by lemonapple

*sigh* Our government...

Yes, that must be tough. Our government (UK) is a bit less pushy about it. They recommend, but they don't insist. My own HV was very careful when she asked me about my plans to vax DD2 not to offend either way.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

If my child were harmed by a vaccination it would be very unfortunate, but I have made the best decision i can with the information i currently have. And currently (i am not psychic or pretending to be so!) it is the best decision for my family. Life is not without risk. I believe what i have chosen minimises risk, you believe differently, but that is absolutely ok with me, and i'm glad we both have the opportunity/freedom to do what we think is right for our families (though i'm in the UK and i understand that in some places they FORCE vaccines on people, which doesn't happen here, and i think is despicable).

It's not so easy to be all philosophical about vax reactions when it has happened in your family. My cousin was left mentally and physically disabled to the point she could not physically care for herself and wasn't even expected to reach adulthood. She did, but she died at 22 barely able to communicate and unable to feed herself still as a result of vax reaction.