They are your babies - you get to do the risk assessment and decide.
They're not. I don't always get to decide who comes in contact with them and who doesn't. Foster, remember? So they have court-mandated visits with some people.
Also, I can't choose whether to vax them or not. They must be vaccinated.
Also, in order to foster, all other children in the home must be vaccinated. And pets must be vaccinated too.
Not arguing, just explaining.
They're not. I don't always get to decide who comes in contact with them and who doesn't. Foster, remember? So they have court-mandated visits with some people.
Also, I can't choose whether to vax them or not. They must be vaccinated.
Also, in order to foster, all other children in the home must be vaccinated. And pets must be vaccinated too.
Not arguing, just explaining.
This kind of misguided, dare I say ignorant (not calling you that marsupial-mom) policy prevents many wonderful potential foster parents from taking in children who do not agree with having to potentially harming their own children and animals just to comply with foster regulations.
They're not. I don't always get to decide who comes in contact with them and who doesn't. Foster, remember? So they have court-mandated visits with some people.
Also, I can't choose whether to vax them or not. They must be vaccinated.
Also, in order to foster, all other children in the home must be vaccinated. And pets must be vaccinated too.
Not arguing, just explaining.
If they have court ordered visits with the unavxxed, you will just have to deal with it . Learning how prevalent some diseases are in your community (pertussis comes to mind for a newborn) may or may not put your mind at ease, but will at least help you to know if your worries are grounded in stats or not. Becoming familiar with the signs of VPD's may also help - delays in diagnosis and misdiagnosis are an issue in the pertussis - infant mortality rate: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/09/08/diagnoses-slow-california-whooping-cough-deaths/
A little off topic - can smokers offer foster care?
In any event, in my earlier post I was simply stating that asking if a person is up to date on their vaxxes might give you the info you want, so you can make decisions about the visits and outings you do control, etc.
To the OP - I am new here and extremely disappointed that I have to see such judgment so early on in my MDC experience. People come to these boards for support, encouragement and information. I think it's safe to say that, while you are entitled to your opinion, your post is unnecessary. You are not going to change anyone's mind with your opinions, which is precisely what you've stated. You've done your research and chosen to believe what you've read. People who choose not to vaccinate have also done plenty of research, I'd be willing to bet more than you, and they've made a careful and thoughtful decision based on what they believe is best for their children and their family.
To imply that anyone on here does not care about other people's children is offensive. I'm certain that no one posting wants any children to suffer, but perhaps they are looking out for their own children first... as they should. There is plenty of evidence that some children have terrible, even fatal, reactions to vaccination; and to many, it is not worth the risk.
I completely agree with emma1325 that you are over-simplifying a very complicated matter. I recommend the recent documentary "The Greater Good", which discusses many of the issues you've mentioned and may help you understand people's decision to not vaccinate more, rather than standing in judgment and making ridiculous and presumptive statements about the beliefs of the people that have made the choice not to vaccinate, like "Vaccination is not some conspiracy that every country on earth just happens to buy into." You can't possibly know why people have made the choice not to vaccinate, and lumping us all into a *crazy conspiracy theorist* group is nonsense.
This kind of misguided, dare I say ignorant (not calling you that marsupial-mom) policy prevents many wonderful potential foster parents from taking in children who do not agree with having to potentially harming their own children and animals just to comply with foster regulations.
Fortunately, the number of parents who choose not to vaccinate is very low. And there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between parents who choose not to vaccinate and those who are interested in being foster parents. In fact, I've never heard once in real life someone say that they wanted to be a foster parent but decided not to because of the vaccination requirements.
Being a foster parent means making some compromises. You must be willing to work with the state to parent someone else's children. Policy decisions attempt to ensure the most benefit for the most children, thus decision makers in fostercare must consider the impacts of their decisions on not just individual children but also other children. I agree with the OP. Vaccination is not a "personal choice"; it is a social responsibility.
That said, I do believe that in our current society, choosing not to vaccinate is a valid choice. But I think it's irresponsible to believe that unvaccinated children pose no danger to other children. The scientific evidence is clear: unvaccinated children are more likely to spread vaccine-preventable diseases than vaccinated children. It's that simple.
There is something very personal about injecting something into my body, or the bodies of my minor children.
Good luck with the foster babies.
I thought this was interesting (USA, 2008):
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/policy-issues/Smoking_Policies.pdf
Apparently it is OK to smoke and be a foster parent in many states, despite the risks they state at the top of the above form:
"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to secondhand smoke presents health hazards to children, including increased risk of asthma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, lower respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, and middle ear infections."
It would be interesting to know if all "children in the home" need to be vaccinated in all states.
It does not seem very rational - your own children need to be vaccinated to foster, even though VPD rates are often quite low, yet smoking is often allowed????
And that is a fact , no one who ever has done real , serious unbiased research , can deny !
Anyone saying differently , is either naiv , totally uninformed or lives on another planet !
This kind of misguided, dare I say ignorant (not calling you that marsupial-mom) policy prevents many wonderful potential foster parents from taking in children who do not agree with having to potentially harming their own children and animals just to comply with foster regulations.
On the contrary , it protects children , that need to placed with foster families , from those that are potentially harming them by not choosing to vaccinate .
It´s bad enough , parents of biological children can deny their kids such a crucial part of health care !
And that is a fact , no one who ever has done real , serious unbiased research , can deny !
Anyone saying differently , is either naiv , totally uninformed or lives on another planet !
I am not naive (note correct spelling), nor am I totally uninformed, nor do I live on another planet. You seem to be following rule #1 of the pharma-shill manual: "Demonize anyone who criticizes vaccines...or who 'says differently' from what we want them to say."
Pertussis and flu are both spread by vaccinated individuals, as those vaccines are ineffective, but people with symptoms of those diseases believe mistakenly that they don't have them when they do. People who have receieved MMR and FluMist vaccines spread live viruses for up to 3 weeks.
Recently, Merck's own virologists have disclosed the Merck lied about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR, and engaged in a massive cover-up to hide that evidence; apparently, mumps outbreaks over the last few decades have been due to that very lack of efficacy.
And the live virus polio vaccine is responsible for thousands of cases of polio in Africa, Nigeria, and India.
Those facts are all corroborated by real, serious, unbiased, MAINSTREAM research.
I am not naive (note correct spelling), nor am I totally uninformed, nor do I live on another planet. You seem to be following rule #1 of the pharma-shill manual: "Demonize anyone who criticizes vaccines...or who 'says differently' from what we want them to say."
Pertussis and flu are both spread by vaccinated individuals, as those vaccines are ineffective, but people with symptoms of those diseases believe mistakenly that they don't have them when they do. People who have receieved MMR and FluMist vaccines spread live viruses for up to 3 weeks.
Recently, Merck's own virologists have disclosed the Merck lied about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR, and engaged in a massive cover-up to hide that evidence; apparently, mumps outbreaks over the last few decades have been due to that very lack of efficacy.
And the live virus polio vaccine is responsible for thousands of cases of polio in Africa, Nigeria, and India.
Those facts are all corroborated by real, serious, unbiased, MAINSTREAM research.
Note her place of origin states Scandinavia. Possibly English is NOT her first language. Be fair.
http://www.safbaby.com/an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-from-dr-donald-miller
This is a great read that covers just what you are referring to.
Fortunately, the number of parents who choose not to vaccinate is very low. And there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between parents who choose not to vaccinate and those who are interested in being foster parents. In fact, I've never heard once in real life someone say that they wanted to be a foster parent but decided not to because of the vaccination requirements.
Being a foster parent means making some compromises. You must be willing to work with the state to parent someone else's children. Policy decisions attempt to ensure the most benefit for the most children, thus decision makers in fostercare must consider the impacts of their decisions on not just individual children but also other children. I agree with the OP. Vaccination is not a "personal choice"; it is a social responsibility.
That said, I do believe that in our current society, choosing not to vaccinate is a valid choice. But I think it's irresponsible to believe that unvaccinated children pose no danger to other children. The scientific evidence is clear: unvaccinated children are more likely to spread vaccine-preventable diseases than vaccinated children. It's that simple.
Well, now you know someone who would become a foster parent but for the fact I will not endanger my children or my pet through forced vaccination, that is a compromised I will never make. I also wouldn't want to be party to harming someone else's child either through vaccination or through having to give them pharmaceutical medicines I believe do way more harm than good.
We will have to disagree on unvaccinated children being a menace to society.
If there is no way of knowing who will react poorly to vaccines, that's a game of russian roulette I'm not willing to play with my family. My DH works in a semi-health care field (firefighter and first responder EMT) and he does not get the flu shot. He works in some of the dirtiest areas of a dirty city with equally dirty residents and we don't worry about him bringing things home to our DD who is partially vaxxed (stopped at 4mos and is now 9mos) and will remain that way. I used to work for a company that had me travelling to people's homes and working with their pets. In that respect I could have been considered a 'vector of disease' spreading it as I went - so does that mean I should have felt socially obligated to update my own vaccine status for the greater good? I don't agree with that theory.
You know what's also a game of Russian roulette? Choosing not to vaccinate, and relying on herd immunity brought about by vaccination to keep your child safe.
How do you know your kid won't be one of the kids who dies of the flu? Of measles? Of meningitis?
You know what's also a game of Russian roulette? Choosing not to vaccinate, and relying on herd immunity brought about by vaccination to keep your child safe.
How do you know your kid won't be one of the kids who dies of the flu? Of measles? Of meningitis?
Not getting VPD does not equal "safe". That just means a handful fewer diseases you think your child might not get, unless of course, the vaccine fails.
How do you know your kid won't be one of the kids who dies from a side effect of a vaccine?
Most of us who don't vaccinate don't "rely" on herd immunity to keep our kids healthy. We rely on a healthy immune system.
Not getting VPD does not equal "safe". That just means a handful fewer diseases you think your child might not get, unless of course, the vaccine fails.
How do you know your kid won't be one of the kids who dies from a side effect of a vaccine?
Most of us who don't vaccinate don't "rely" on herd immunity to keep our kids healthy. We rely on a healthy immune system.
You're relying on herd immunity. You just don't realize you're relying on it.
You're relying on herd immunity. You just don't realize you're relying on it.
OK then. Even if I am relying on it (which doesn't factor in to my decision not to vaccinate, BTW), why would that matter? Hypothetically, if I were making my decisions based on "herd immunity", and vaccination rates dropped and I decided to start vaccinating based on that, I would still be making a conscious choice for the health of my child. It's still making an educated choice, whether you agree with it or not.
Regardless, I don't worry about VPDs. I do worry about vaccine reactions and the lack of long-term studies about vaccine safety.
Do you think it was Russian Roulette to even have a child before vaccines were invented? I mean, all those humans survived somehow, right?
Follow Mothering