Why is pro-vaccine talk fully supported (even encouraged - it has its own board) - Page 5

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Is that worse than telling a new mother that she is a horrible person for circumcising her son and that he is doomed to a life of misery and sexual dysfunction because she failed to do the proper research?  Because that seems to be a-ok around here.

And really, I've seen maybe 2 or 3 posters ever saying what you are talking about.  And those instances I can think of were (with one recent, notable exception) done with respect and not targeted at a specific person by belittling them and insulting them, as I have seen time and time again with regards to circumcision.

I'm certainly not in favor of targeted belittling at anyone. Be it an individual or a group of people. I don't spend any appreciable amount of time on the circ forum but I am not in any way in favor of this behavior you're describing. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by transylvania_mom 

No one is arguing that ALL newborns should receive Hep B vaccine. What I'm saying is that Hep B vaccine can benefit some families in specific situations, and that's why a vaccinating on schedule forum might be informative.

I agree Hep b can benefit some families. I would consider this part of sel/delayed.

To me a "vaccinating on schedule" forum is different as I do not think you can make a case for conforming to a schedule while also being pro-informed choice.  

It could be a semantics issue - and it may come down to how you define pro-vax.

I have no issues with a pro-vax forum existing.  I do think the mods would need to keep an eye on it to make sure it still sticks to the mandate of informed parental choice - if they want to keep an eye on the non-vax forum to make sure it also sticks to a mandate of informed parental choice - fine.

The whole thing might cut down on the bickering, which would be good.

Lastly, I do not mind pro-circ stuff being posted on MDC I don't think there is enough interest to warrant a forum, but if someone wants to discuss a study on how circ might cut down on UTI's, I do not see why that cannot be explored here.  I don't think anyone should urge anyone to circ () but (in general) I do not think people should tell anyone to vax or not vax.  Oh, and before anyone starts shooting big flame tipped arrows at me, I am anti-circ and my son is not circumcised.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 9/28/12 at 2:39pm

[philomom]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Is that worse than telling a new mother that she is a horrible person for circumcising her son and that he is doomed to a life of misery and sexual dysfunction because she failed to do the proper research?  Because that seems to be a-ok around here.

And really, I've seen maybe 2 or 3 posters ever saying what you are talking about.  And those instances I can think of were (with one recent, notable exception) done with respect and not targeted at a specific person by belittling them and insulting them, as I have seen time and time again with regards to circumcision.

Actually, here at Mothering I have been told I "ruined" my kid's immune system for even select vaxing.

And that I shorted my kids by not breastfeeding past two years of age.

And that allowing my children to eat sweets was dooming them to obesity and diabetes.

All mothers judge. MDC mothers are no exception and we are quite passionate and well researched about some of our topics.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by queenjane 

I dont think thats what she meant. I think (she can correct me if im wrong) she is saying SHE isnt saying the pros and cons of vaxes shouldnt be shared/debated/discussed, but what she IS questioning (in this thread) is whether vaccinating should be positively SUPPORTED at mothering, as a policy.

But i could be wrong LOL.

Yep, thanks.  :)

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by philomom 


Actually, here at Mothering I have been told I "ruined" my kid's immune system for even select vaxing.
And that I shorted my kids by not breastfeeding past two years of age.
And that allowing my children to eat sweets was dooming them to obesity and diabetes.
All mothers judge. MDC mothers are no exception and we are quite passionate and well researched about some of our topics.

So it's ok to be cruel and hurtful as long as it's well-informed?  Good to know.

[Imakcerka]

Originally Posted by emma1325 


Yep, thanks. 

There is ONE thread here that supports vaccines. Thats the Thoughtfully vaccinating thread. I don't see how MDC has been overrun by vaccinating mamas.

[transylvania_mom]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Is that worse than telling a new mother that she is a horrible person for circumcising her son and that he is doomed to a life of misery and sexual dysfunction because she failed to do the proper research?  Because that seems to be a-ok around here.

And really, I've seen maybe 2 or 3 posters ever saying what you are talking about.  And those instances I can think of were (with one recent, notable exception) done with respect and not targeted at a specific person by belittling them and insulting them, as I have seen time and time again with regards to circumcision.

I don't think it's the best approach to tell a mother she is a horrible person, be that for circ / not circ, vaxing / not vaxing etc. Posts like this have been removed from the Case against circumcision as well. There are moms who circed and now oppose it they are a great contribution to the forum. Like moms who used to spank or CIO who regret their past decisions and are welcomed and hugged in the Gentle discipline and Nighttime parenting forums.

But there is no place for moms who say: I vax on schedule and consider it the best choice for my family and don't regret my decision. Vaxes are not considered all bad by many members of MDC; the proof is that those vaxing selectively or on a different schedule are welcomed here. So are those having a cesarian, there is a forum for that too. There is no excuse for circumcision besides cultural conditioning. And the kid's future sex life IS impaired if he has an incomplete organ. The forum is called "The case AGAINST circumcision".

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 


Except Mothering's position regarding vaccines is that it supports informed choice, the same cannot be said for the other things you list.

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

Since Mothering's official position on vaccines is that it supports informed choice I believe that there is absolutely a place here for vaccinators just as there is a place for non-vaxers.
 

I'm still reading through this thread, but I finally have a place to say this.  The last time MDC highlighted the Case Against Circumcision article a few weeks ago (on the "Home" page) the line (misquoted because I can't find the actual post, just the article) "so that parents can make an informed decision."  And I thought, hmmmmm..... didn't we just go round and round about this on the vaccinations forums?  

I am not suggesting that MDC host pro-circ discussions, I just was really ticked at the semantics.  I'll go read the rest of this thread now.

[fairejour]

I have a child who is deaf. We chose to have her put under anesthesia, have a hole drilled in her head, and an electrical component placed inside her. We did this to allow her the opportunity to hear. We had to make the decision as her parents because if it is not done in early childhood, she will likely never benefit from it. There are people who believe we are monsters (been called a Nazi, been told that I am committing genocide) because we chose an elective surgery that compromised her bodily integrity. Thing is, we couldn't wait and allow her to choose when she grows up, because not acting now renders the decision moot.

To me, I see a strong parallel between our situation and vaccines. There are plenty of parents who do not choose to implant their kids, because they believe that the benefits do not outweigh the possible cons. And that is great! And the same with vaccines. But, if I do my research and I believe that I want to utilize vaccines to guard my child from childhood illnesses, I need to have them vaccinated in childhood. It is not a decesion that can wait until adulthood.

[Sharlla]

Originally Posted by fairejour 

To me, I see a strong parallel between our situation and vaccines.

see to me the two arent even close to each other. 

[fairejour]

Originally Posted by Sharlla 

see to me the two arent even close to each other. 

Of course they are. I am altering my daughter's body, without her consent, for what I believe to be the greater good. I could easily choose to not alter it, and leave her alone, and there are pros and cons to each side. It is my job as the parent to determine what is best for my child, and make an informed decision. There is science on both sides, but this is a time sensitive situation, just like vaccinating. A responsible parent, doing their due diligence, could come down on either side, just as in vaccinating. 

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by fairejour 

Of course they are. I am altering my daughter's body, without her consent, for what I believe to be the greater good. I could easily choose to not alter it, and leave her alone, and there are pros and cons to each side. It is my job as the parent to determine what is best for my child, and make an informed decision. There is science on both sides, but this is a time sensitive situation, just like vaccinating. A responsible parent, doing their due diligence, could come down on either side, just as in vaccinating. 

I would agree....they are very similar.  I hope your daughter is doing well!

[philomom]

Originally Posted by fairejour 

Of course they are. I am altering my daughter's body, without her consent, for what I believe to be the greater good. I could easily choose to not alter it, and leave her alone, and there are pros and cons to each side. It is my job as the parent to determine what is best for my child, and make an informed decision. There is science on both sides, but this is a time sensitive situation, just like vaccinating. A responsible parent, doing their due diligence, could come down on either side, just as in vaccinating. 

I agree. I would have agonized over the choice you made. But after careful research, I would have done the same thing most likely. I do realize the deaf community is quite split on advances like this. However, other than risk of infection..... won't this give your child the best hope of developing normal speech?

[fairejour]

Originally Posted by philomom 


I agree. I would have agonized over the choice you made. But after careful research, I would have done the same thing most likely. I do realize the deaf community is quite split on advances like this. However, other than risk of infection..... won't this give your child the best hope of developing normal speech?

There are risks, just like those with vaccines. In fact, even the risk of death. I believe that an implant will give my child more opportunities than her life without an implant would. I also believe that giving her the meningitis shot before her surgery was less risky than allowing her to have this surgery, which has been know to facilitate meningitis in other kids. But again, other well informed parents believe that sign language is completely non-invasive and will much more easily facilitate communication and language growth than an electrical device in her head. Intelligent, informed people can come down on either side of both debates.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Sharlla 

see to me the two arent even close to each other. 

I agree.
This is like comparing my daughter's foot surgery to vaccines. They're medical decisions we make for our kids, and both have pros and cons- that's where the similarity ends. One is a procedure to repair a defect and allow the child to live a more "normal" life than she would have been able to otherwise. The other is a procedure performed on a healthy child. It does not attempt to repair a defect, but instead gambles for a chance of protection against something the child may or may not encounter.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

I agree.
This is like comparing my daughter's foot surgery to vaccines. They're medical decisions we make for our kids, and both have pros and cons- that's where the similarity ends. One is a procedure to repair a defect and allow the child to live a more "normal" life than she would have been able to otherwise. The other is a procedure performed on a healthy child. It does not attempt to repair a defect, but instead gambles for a chance of protection against something the child may or may not encounter.

The vast majority of the Deaf community would not consider being Deaf to be a "defect"- they would be highly insulted by such a statement.

I think fairejoire's analogy is quite good, and much more apt than comparing circ and vaccination.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

The vast majority of the Deaf community would not consider being Deaf to be a "defect"- they would be highly insulted by such a statement.
I think fairejoire's analogy is quite good, and much more apt than comparing circ and vaccination.

You can be offended if you want. I think you know what I mean

[transylvania_mom]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 


 It does not attempt to repair a defect, but instead gambles for a chance of protection against something the child may or may not encounter.

You don't know what the chances are for MY children to encounter some specific risks. It's my job to decide if the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.

[kathymuggle]

MDC has decided we are allowed to share the pros of vaccination (this is very true - even if there are no pro-vax forums).  They allow this as they are pro-informed choice.  Good.  Great.  I agree with them.

Circumcision has a pro (probably more than one - but I don't know much about circ).  UTI's are experienced by 1/100 uncirc'ed baby boys and 1/1000 circ'ed baby boys.  That is quite the difference.  Know what happens if you show up at ER with an infant with a fever?  A spinal tap.  

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/fever/a/0707_baby_fever.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/11/study-confirms-uncircumcised-boys-uti-risk/

Maybe I am completely wrong about the above - but how can we sort it out if we cannot discuss it?

So we can discuss the pros of vaccines as that supports informed consent, yet we cannot discuss the pros of circ?  Shouldn't informed choice be a given on all medical discussion?  I find it odd.  

I am not arguing for circ, I don't think there is enough of a population base to support a pro-circ forum (and I bet it would make the vaccine forums look downright pleasant in terms of nastiness if we had one)…but a thread where someone wants to discuss the pros and cons of circ?  That should be allowed to happen.

Edited by kathymuggle - 9/29/12 at 6:29pm

[~Adorkable~]

Since a large population of MDC choose vax in some way or at least ponders deeply if they should, then it is responsible of MDC to host a intelligent, non blaming place for those that want to ask and learn to talk to each other. Informed choice.

MDC provides a place where we can ask these questions, not to the internet at large, but to otherwise like minded folks that in general appreciate questioning everything and doing research.

This lets me ask questions and learn and generally feel like I am going to get wise things brought up. That here I will get respected for my questioning and thoughtful decision, rather than scorned or thought a freak for daring to defy the status quo.

Sadly in most of the areas, even thoughtful parents asking thoughtful questions about Vax, do in fact get dog piled on by the anti vax folks.

So it is helpful to establish an area where its ok for me to say,

"look feel free to help me understand when the best age is...., or what can i do to help my kids deal with..."

and let me get spared the

"better yet, don't poison your kids and you wouldn't have to ask these questions"

That area needs to be on MDC right now, beacsue on most other parenting boards, the response I would get is

"well my doctor told me it has to be at 12m",

and

"giving them lollipops and Tylenol always does the trick!"