The privilege of being vaccinated in a first world country: is there really a difference in...

[miriam]

The U.S. Senate and President Obama think so. 

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar announced that her legislation, the International Adoption Simplification Act, has been signed into law by President Obama.  

S1376

http://klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=328798

http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111OMg8ne::

The bill allows U.S. parents adopting foreign-born children to safely immunize their children in the United States within 30 days of their arrivals, rather than have to subject their children to potentially unsafe immunizations in foreign nations. Previously, parents who adopted internationally were frequently required to immunize their children in their country of origin before bringing them to the United States.

WHY ARE THESE FOREIGN VACCINES UNSAFE?

1.  Reuse of needles

2.  Mercury content - due to the lack of refrigeration in some places, most vaccines come in ten dose vials, preserved with thimerasol, but that really should not matter....I think. 

3. Fill in with your own favorite reason ____________________ .

https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=2&article_id=80225&CFID=323533512&CFTOKEN=38148225

We can only hope that all those foreign nations don’t pick up on this news story and wonder why it is okay for children who are remaining in Africa, Asia, South America or Eastern Europe to receive unsafe vaccines.  How could the journalists who put together this story miss the major question of why it is okay for some kids (adopted in to the U.S.) to get “safe” vaccines and other children (remaining in their home countries) to receive unsafe vaccines? Why don’t all of those upbeat stories about vaccine campaigns in developing countries mention the hazards of “unsafe immunizations” and ask donors to give so children’s lives can be saved?  Furthermore, how many vaccines are these kids going to receive within 30 days of their arrival in the U.S? If they are expected to catch up on several years worth of vaccination within 30 days they may still end up with some major health problems

Edited by miriam - 6/4/11 at 4:17pm

[Liquesce]

WHO papers I've read on the subject have mostly been regarding available injection supplies, sterilization, and the training of the individuals administering the injections; not so much about vaccine safety directly as vaccine-related supplies and personnel.

[miriam]

So you are going for #3?

I do not believe that WHO would admit to numbers 1 or 2. 

Why would this even be an issue? Why would Congress even concern itself with this?

[Liquesce]

A big part of "available injection supplies" is reuse of needles.     As mentioned previously on this board, I have myself been stuck with a previously used needle in a country more developed than many but where nevertheless people often can't afford medical care and medical care providers often can't afford supplies. That this is problematic is not a secret, in any country.

[Jane93]

You're acting as if this is some crazy new thing.  Congress adopted the Hague Convention -- this Act just incorporates certain pre-existing exemptions that were lost due to that adoption and/or clarifies that they are also to apply to Hague convention countries.  

[NYMommy2007]

Originally Posted by miriam 

So you are going for #3?

I do not believe that WHO would admit to numbers 1 or 2. 

Why would this even be an issue? Why would Congress even concern itself with this?

This is a very important issue to people who are involved in foreign adoptions, that is why Congress should concern themselves with this.  SB 1376 allows waivers of the immigration immunization requirements for children adopted from Hague partner countries.  Many children adopted internationally are un-vaccinated, under-vaccinated or records have been poorly kept.  This Bill makes it possible for the child to come home to the US without having to get caught up in sometimes less than ideal locations.  In addition, in the US the child will be able to have tests to check their immunity and therefore not have to get re-vaccinated if their vaccine records are not available.  This is a good law, I'm not sure why someone would use it to try to prove an argument that vaccines are bad.

[miriam]

This is a good law, I'm not sure why someone would use it to try to prove an argument that vaccines are bad.

The news article states, again, I repeat. 

http://klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=328798&

“The bill also allows U.S. parents adopting foreign-born children to safely immunize their children in the United States within 30 days of their arrivals, rather than have to subject their children to potentially unsafe immunizations in foreign nations..."

This is a news article from the Senator who introduced the bill.  If it is wrong, find for me the errata statement. 

And my statement regarding the first world concern; if the vaccines in other countries are  so bad, why can't the WHO and other concerned organizations take steps to make the record keeping and quality of the vaccines better?  If the vaccine are so good and beneficial for all children everywhere, why does it take an act of Congress to protect the children being adopted to this country to allow the children to get our vaccines?  Why can't the children being left behind receive better care in the form of better health conditions ?  

Let us not make excuses for the poor status quo of the health conditions of these children.  

Seems a bit elitist to me.  

AND the argument I see here and elsewhere is that we Americans "can afford to not vaccinate" because of our "standard of living".  LIE. There are plenty of other nations that have better standard of living and healthcare and do not rely on the vaccinations so heavily. 

Edited by miriam - 6/10/11 at 11:49am

[Jane93]

Way to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Better record-keeping and availability of injection supplies are very important, and yes the WHO and other concerned organizations should be (and I assume are) working on these issues.  This doesn't mean that vaccinations (like the measles vaccination) are not life-saving in the third world and should not be performed.

It would also be great if these children had sure access to clean water and many of the other niceties that we take for granted here.  Your point is?

[Jane93]

Also, having been sick in a foreign country (Greece), there is a lot of apprehension around having medical procedures performed in a way that (though competent) may deviate from what you're used to.  My mom hated that my doctor gave me an injection without wearing gloves (even though the doctor pointed out that the gloves were more protection for him than me). 

I'm sure that most adoptive parents would rather their kids get injected in a nice pediatrician's office in Minnetoka than a public clinic in Africa. 

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Jane93 

Better record-keeping and availability of injection supplies are very important, and yes the WHO and other concerned organizations should be (and I assume are) working on these issues. 

Indeed they are.  The whole purpose of there even being relevant papers is assessing the state of things to determine where there are problems, to develop strategies for rectifying issues, and to track progress in making improvements.  

Heck, even just browsing around ... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=related:ZGDfk6nvvsIJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31