or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Non-Vaxing and Vaxing Parents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Non-Vaxing and Vaxing Parents - Page 4

post #61 of 110

I don't really think of vaccinating as being altruistic, I think of it more as participating in a social contract.  Vaccines work best for everyone when the highest # of people who can be vaccinated are vaccinated.  It's better for my kids, it's better for your kids, it's better for kids who can't be vaccinated, it's better for everyone.  My kids are of course my top priority, but if there's no obvious reason not to vaccinate them, it's my duty (in my opinion) as a mother and as a citizen to do it. 

post #62 of 110

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a3.htm

 

 

FIGURE. Estimated percentage of children enrolled in kindergarten who have been exempted from receiving one or more vaccines* — United States, 2012–13 school year

The figure above shows the estimated percentage of children enrolled in kindergarten who have been exempted from receiving one or more vaccines in the United States during the 2012-13 school year. An estimated 91,453 exemptions were reported among a total estimated population of 4,242,558 kindergarteners. Overall, among the 49 states and District of Columbia that reported 2012-13 school vaccination exemptions, the percentage of kindergarteners with an exemption was <1% for nine awardees and >4% for 11 awardees (range: <0.1% in Mississippi to 6.5% in Oregon), with a median of 1.8%.

* Exemptions might not reflect a child's vaccination status. Children with an exemption who did not receive any vaccines are indistinguishable from those who have an exemption but are up-to-date for one or more vaccines.

 

this of course does not take into account what the real data is and is only showing basically kindergarden age students, excluding such things as in my state, I do not have to report vaccination statics to age 7, many states you never report if you homeschool, it also does not look at the general population (including adults) of which we know those for are receiving  Medicare only qualify for 3 vaccines, so it is not a look at the general population as a whole and what the real numbers really are

this is also worth looking at to compare states that are high vaccine compliance vs outbreaks of just pertussis - http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html 

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloads/pertussis-surveillance-report.pdf  (note Mississippi and Arizona for example)

there are charts that show flu out breaks for states as well

 

OT but certainly worth looking at - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/11/maps-antibiotics-prescriptions-obesity-states

 many states with low vaccine exemption (higher rates of vaccinated kindergartners) also have some of the highest rates of antibiotic use  and highest obesity rates


Edited by serenbat - 11/24/13 at 5:30am
post #63 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Deliberate exposure and spreading of any illness should be heavily punished. Just my humble opinion. 

I am slowly making my way through this thread, but this jumped out at me.

 

Should those who vaccinated their children against chicken pox, and are thus increasing the current rate of shingles in the vast majority of the population who has had chicken pox, be punished for increasing shingles in the population at large?  No. 

 

The bottom line with health is that people have the right to use or not use prescribed medications as they see fit.  There are exceptions where medical negligence and children come into play, but refusing to give your child a vaccine with somewhat unquantifiable risk factors for a disease that might be very rare and/or not dangerous isn't medical negligence. ;) 


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/24/13 at 3:50pm
post #64 of 110

 I don't think you have the right to be altruistic with someones elses body.  

post #65 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Deliberate exposure and spreading of any illness should be heavily punished. Just my humble opinion. 

 

 

Should those who vaccinated their children against chicken pox, and are thus increasing the current rate of shingles in the vast majority of the population who has had chicken pox, be punished for increasing shingle;es in the population at large?  No.  yet punishment "should" be inflicted on others??

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

@Serenbat, I don't answer all the "simple" questions you ask,

 

I would love to know the answer to these questions I posed, but I assume they are "simple" questions and not worthy of answers -

 

So every time a vaccinated child, who does have the VPD goes out in public they can spread this as well to- they don't get punished in your world but others get heavily punished? And nothing should happen to you because your under vaccinated child right now can spread VPD to others- correct? As long as others are heavily punished that's OK with you?

 

 

I fail to see the distinction between EM's view of deliberate ( but that really means organized somehow??) vs out right knowing one's under-vaccinate child can also spread VPD's  or as in what Kathy said, when a vaccinated child helps to increase shingles, is it really that far different?, both to me are deliberate acts, but "deliberated" doesn't mean what deliberated really means :dizzy 

post #66 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I would love to know the answer to these questions I posed, but I assume they are "simple" questions and not worthy of answers -

 

 

 

After 3000+ posts, you should be able to grasp forum netiquette by now. I say it again: The reason why you do not get answers is because you tinker with my posts. Stop underlining what I have written, stop making it red or changing size, and definitely stop writing within my quotes! I don't want anti-vax propaganda within my posts. I want what I wrote to be kept the way I wrote it.

 

The time you spend changing colour and font (no need for that, we are adults) is better used to quote properly. Click the "quote" button, leave my words untouched and then reply outside of the quote.  You can even do this multiple times. 

post #67 of 110

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

@Serenbat, I don't answer all the "simple" questions you ask,

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

I don't want anti-vax propaganda within my posts. :dizzy I want what I wrote to be kept the way I wrote it.

 

 

 

I fail to see the distinction between EM's view of deliberate ( but that really means organized somehow??) vs out right knowing one's under-vaccinate child can also spread VPD's  or as in what Kathy said, when a vaccinated child helps to increase shingles, is it really that far different?, both to me are deliberate acts, but "deliberated" doesn't mean what deliberated really means :dizzy

 

it does not change my questions (which you did not answer), nor address the concerns that Kathy stated (Should those who vaccinated their children against chicken pox, and are thus increasing the current rate of shingles in the vast majority of the population who has had chicken pox, be punished for increasing shingle;es in the population at large?  No.)

and so did I, and how you jump to anti vac propaganda - WOW! 

 

Kathy is correct, the answer is NO - picking and choosing to go after parents is wrong!

post #68 of 110
Intent matters. I agree it should be illegal to organize pox parties, and I think parents who do so should be fined. That is purposely spreading infectious disease. It's a menace to public health and a huge jump from simply not getting your kid vaccinated. And sending infectious things through the mail is horrendous! I think people are trying to blur lines of something that is actually pretty clear. For instance, getting on a plane with mild flu like symptoms is one thing (not that I think it's something that is ok to do, I definitely do not), being diagnosed with measles and then getting on a plane is another. Knowledge and intent are the big issues to me.
post #69 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Intent matters. Knowledge and intent are the big issues to me.

If intent and knowledge matter to you, how do you square it when it comes to parents that delay or are selective? They surely acknowledge (because their intent is to not have their child up-to-date) are they to held liable as well? Those children can also spread VPD? 




ETA - if you look at states that do report VPD do you just assume that those VPD are all spread at parties and only among completely unvaccinated? I would say you can call it a party all you want, that does not change the fact that VPD are being spread(as stated previously by misdiagnose) but by those who selective/ delay just being in the general population everyday. The differential is not mind blowing -IMO
Edited by serenbat - 11/24/13 at 6:38pm
post #70 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Intent matters. I agree it should be illegal to organize pox parties, and I think parents who do so should be fined. That is purposely spreading infectious disease. It's a menace to public health and a huge jump from simply not getting your kid vaccinated. And sending infectious things through the mail is horrendous! I think people are trying to blur lines of something that is actually pretty clear. For instance, getting on a plane with mild flu like symptoms is one thing (not that I think it's something that is ok to do, I definitely do not), being diagnosed with measles and then getting on a plane is another. Knowledge and intent are the big issues to me.

 

Exactly. It is a clear line. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

Should those who vaccinated their children against chicken pox, and are thus increasing the current rate of shingles in the vast majority of the population who has had chicken pox, be punished for increasing shingles in the population at large?  No. 

 

The bottom line with health is that people have the right to use or not use prescribed medications as they see fit.  There are exceptions where medical negligence and children come into play, but refusing to give your child a vaccine with somewhat unquantifiable risk factors for a disease that might be very rare and/or not dangerous isn't medical negligence. ;) 

 

 

It is possible to get shingles after the pox vaccine, but less likely than getting it from the pox itself. Which, again, supports my point. Deliberately exposing to chickenpox increases the chances of shingles. And should therefore be fined. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/shingles/hcp/clinical-overview.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/

 

I am not saying that refusing your child a vaccine should be fined, I am saying that organising a party with the intent to make children sick or sending infected material through the post should be. Two different things. Big difference. 

 

So this would again bring us to the orignal topic. If everyone vaccinated against chickenpox, the virus would eventually die out, which means that in the long run, it wouldn't be needed anymore, like the smallpox vaccine. That means NO SHINGLES for ANYONE. 

 

In a previous post, I mentioned Kohlberg and morality. Thinking on a global level (what if everyone did this?) is the highest step of morality. This can apply to vaccinations, especially when the person who gets the vaccine is at almost no risk of catching the actual disease. So, vaccinating against chickenpox or measles would not be considered altruistic, as there is a good chance of your child catching them if they are not protected. But vaccinating against diphtheria, with the global idea of wiping it out, even though it isn't around, is altruistic. 

 

What happens if I don't protect myself from diphtheria? Nothing. But what if everyone thought that way? Would it spread again? That is moral thinking. According to Kohlberg, anyway. 

 

Moral "high ground" as a PP worded it, would also apply if you believe that your healthy child would have no problem coping with chickenpox or measles and you vaccinate only for the sake of immunocompromised people. 


Edited by EineMutti - 11/25/13 at 1:36am
post #71 of 110

  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

 

 

It is possible to get shingles after the pox vaccine, but less likely than getting it from the pox itself. Which, again, supports my point. Deliberately exposing to chickenpox increases the chances of shingles. And should therefore be fined. 

 

 

I am not saying that refusing your child a vaccine should be fined, I am saying that organizing a party with the intent to make children sick or sending infected material through the post should be. Two different things. Big difference. 

 

So this would again bring us to the original topic. If everyone vaccinated against chickenpox, the virus would eventually die out, which means that in the long run, it wouldn't be needed anymore, like the smallpox vaccine. That means NO SHINGLES for ANYONE. 

 

 

Let's start with shingles.  In the past, anyone who had chicken pox would receive an immune boost any time they were around someone with chicken pox.  This immune boost is thought to keep shingles in check.  

 

Here is a article on the issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563790/

 

This "no shingles for anyone" utopia  (which seems unlikely:  technically, you can get shingles post vaccination and the vaccine has a failure rate) will take 30-50 years.  That is quite the number of people who will have a higher shingles incidence rate and at a lower age than in previous generations.  

 

It is your call to vaccinate your child for chicken pox, but it has negative consequences for a large chunk of society.  

 

As per chicken pox parties, I think they are fine.  I am a bit squeamish about playing god - what if my kid is one of the ones who gets a bad case of chicken pox?  That is a risk you have to take when you attend a chicken  pox party.  It is no different that the risk you take when you vaccinate your child - what if your child is one who has a serious reaction?   I know if my child gets chicken pox, there is a slight chance they will give it to someone who should not get chicken pox, but to a degree that is life.    The number of people who have medical exemptions is pretty small :  

 

National medical exemption rates ranged from a low of 263 per 100 000 children (2006–2007 school year) to a high of 411 per 100 000 children (2008–2009 school year).  http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/07/10/infdis.jis436.full.  

 

So my child shouldn't get chicken pox on the off chance they encounter, while they are contagious,  one of 263-411/ 100 000 children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons?  

 

For years my youngest had lung issues.  A cold could turn into pneumonia.  It was awful.  That being said, if a vaccine existed for the common cold, I would not expect everyone in the world to run out and get it to protect my child.  I would not expect everyone to take a vaccine risk for a disease that is of no concern to them - that would be pretty selfish.  

 

______________

 

In general:

 

This whole "non-vaxxers are selfish and vaxxers are altruistic thing" strikes me as so self-righteous. I get this is how some of you feel (and I truly get it - I feel formula feeding for no  good reason is selfish) but who am I to judge?  Or you?  There is a certain irony in vaccine judgments as the negatives of mass vaccination campaigns are rarely addressed.  People only want to feel good about their choice, get on their high horse, and not consider the broader implications of what they have/are doing.  

post #72 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

In general:

 

This whole "non-vaxxers are selfish and vaxxers are altruistic thing" strikes me as so self-righteous. I get this is how some of you feel (and I truly get it - I feel formula feeding for no  good reason is selfish) but who am I to judge?  Or you?  There is a certain irony in vaccine judgments as the negatives of mass vaccination campaigns are rarely addressed.  People only want to feel good about their choice, get on their high horse, and not consider the broader implications of what they have/are doing.  

:yeah 

this whole thread reminds me so much of the pull tags we have at the grocery store check out to donate to the local food bank-feel good, doing your part!

post #73 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

This "no shingles for anyone" utopia  (which seems unlikely:  technically, you can get shingles post vaccination and the vaccine has a failure rate) will take 30-50 years.  That is quite the number of people who will have a higher shingles incidence rate and at a lower age than in previous generations.  

 

 

Technically, you can get smallpox from the vaccine, and yet, it was wiped out, anyway. With vaccines. So why would this not be possible for the chickenpox? And isn't "utopian" thinking moral thinking?

 

 
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

In general:

 

This whole "non-vaxxers are selfish and vaxxers are altruistic thing" strikes me as so self-righteous. I get this is how some of you feel (and I truly get it - I feel formula feeding for no  good reason is selfish) but who am I to judge?  Or you?  There is a certain irony in vaccine judgments as the negatives of mass vaccination campaigns are rarely addressed.  People only want to feel good about their choice, get on their high horse, and not consider the broader implications of what they have/are doing.  

 

 

If a non-vaxxer feels that not vaccinating is overall good for the community and has global advantages, then he can claim the moral high ground. Which means, that your sweeping general statement here can theoretically apply to both groups. 

 

And if the non-vaxxer thinks that vaccinating is the best thing for the community, but they just don't want to take the risk for themselves, than that is selfish and no moral high ground can be claimed. Nothing wrong with that, either. Not all decisions have to made with the global community in mind. 

post #74 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

And if the non-vaxxer thinks that vaccinating is the best thing for the community, but they just don't want to take the risk for themselves, than that is selfish and no moral high ground can be claimed. Nothing wrong with that, either. Not all decisions have to made with the global community in mind. 

I do not support this chain of thought, I do not support that it is the best thing for the community - I share this belief with others that also do not vac. - I have yet IRL to meet one that does not vac that espousals this type of  thought either - maybe there are some but I know of none!

post #75 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I do not support this chain of thought, I do not support that it is the best thing for the community - I share this belief with others that also do not vac. - I have yet IRL to meet one that does not vac that espousals this type of  thought either - maybe there are some but I know of none!

 

Exactly. It seems that both sides seem to believe that they are doing the best thing for themselves, their children and their community. Which means, both groups can theoretically, feel like this about the themselves or the other: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

People only want to feel good about their choice, get on their high horse, and not consider the broader implications of what they have/are doing.  

 

Non-vaxxers can feel as if they sit on the high horse, and pro-vaxxers think that they are not considering wider implications. And vice versa.

post #76 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Technically, you can get smallpox from the vaccine, and yet, it was wiped out, anyway. With vaccines. So why would this not be possible for the chickenpox? And isn't "Utopian" thinking moral thinking?

 

 

Smallpox and chicken pox are hardly comparable.  Shingles is worse than CP in the vast, vast majority of cases; the same cannot be said for smallpox.

 

As per the second question, and straight off the cuff - no.  Utopian thinking can be quite dangerous - and whose utopia?  

post #77 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Exactly. It seems that both sides seem to believe that they are doing the best thing for themselves, their children and their community. Which means, both groups can theoretically, feel like this about the themselves or the other: 

 

Non-vaxxers can feel as if they sit on the high horse, and pro-vaxxers think that they are not considering wider implications. And vice versa.

the problem is only one side is calling for fines to be imposed upon the other side, restricts as to exemptions or in some cases the total ban,  that's not balanced (vice versa) - thus it is not the same in the eyes of many

post #78 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

If a non-vaxxer feels that not vaccinating is overall good for the community and has global advantages, then he can claim the moral high ground. Which means, that your sweeping general statement here can theoretically apply to both groups. 

 

And if the non-vaxxer thinks that vaccinating is the best thing for the community, but they just don't want to take the risk for themselves, than that is selfish and no moral high ground can be claimed. Nothing wrong with that, either. Not all decisions have to made with the global community in mind. 

 

I can agree with this.  My issue is that those who are pro-vaccine compliance regularly try to paint not vaxxing as an unethical choice (when it isn't - if you believe, correctly or incorrectly, that vaccines are dangerous for your own children then it is your parental responsibility to keep vaccines away from your kids) but we rarely speak of the advantages to not vaccinating.  We do, a little, on MDC - but even then it is often a defensive move - someone starts on about altruism, selfishness, etc and someone else comes on and tells them why it is not that clear cut.  

 

I straight up think it is unethical to have a child assume a vaccine risk for the benefit of another child, some think it is unethical for others to get the benefits of vaccination with out the risks.  Okay-dokey, we disagree.  People can come to different conclusions about moral questions.  What we should not do, IMHO, is shoot flames at each other over these type of legal decisions.  That is immoral as well (not saying I am not guilty of it from time to time).    Who exactly, does our collective sniping and pointing fingers, help?  I suspect it helps those who want vaccine-compliance the most. If you can get many people to hate non-vaxxers then it becomes easier to slide in rules that are truly unjust and usurp parental authority on vaccines.   I feel increasing less inclined to play (not sure I like giving the pro-vaccine compliant a POV to rally against) and yet, keeping quiet is not an answer either.  

post #79 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

the problem is only one side is calling for fines to be imposed upon the other side, restricts as to exemptions or in some cases the total ban,  that's not balanced (vice versa) - thus it is not the same in the eyes of many

What you are describing is called "Medical McCarthyism."

 

Ultimately, one small group benefits--the pharmaceutical industry. They throw enough propaganda around to convince the population that they, too, are benefiting.

 

It worked with the H1N1 shot.  In fact, it's worked with pretty much everything the pharmaceutical industry has dreamed up to keep us paying them for magic pills and shots to ward off the dreaded unknown illnesses (some of which, like flu, measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc) WERE known, and were considered routine childhood illnesses, but the propaganda hype has convinced the current generation that these are horrible dread diseases that have a high chance of killing you and your children, and that anyone who refuses the vaccines must therefore be endangering the entire community, blah blah blah.

post #80 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

Some responses suggested an action cannot be altruistic if there is no risk in it. I'd like to respond to that.

First, while I am confident vaccines are very safe, I would always acknowledge that they (along with any medicine) do carry a risk - however small. I'm sure mindfully vaccinating parents would all agree with that - we've just decided that risk is small enough to be acceptable for the benefits.

But secondly, even without any risk, I think actions can still be partly altruistic. Something which doesn't only benefit you, but also others does not have to be dangerous to be a good thing to do.

I think my best example is wearing seatbelts in flight in airplanes. Low risk, but if unexpected turbulence occurs much safer for you and all the people around you..... So partly done for self protection, and partly to protect others.

I agree:

 

Consider recycling:  Recycling is often done to prevent over-flow in landfills.  It can be inconvenient to recycle - but it is not risky.  Altruism does not have to involve risk.

 

I don't think vaccinating is an altruist act, however.  I think it is a presonal act done to safeguard (if one beleives vaccines safeguard) the health of ones own children.  I breastfed my children.  I breastfed them for a number of reason, but one of the biggest was health reasons.  Breatfed babies are less likely to get sick.  Less sickenesses = less transmitting of illness (thus breastfeeding benefits society) but I did not breastfeed to help society and I am not claiming altruism with that choice.  It was simply a nice side effect.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/25/13 at 7:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Non-Vaxing and Vaxing Parents