Originally Posted by ma2two
I was simply taking you at your word. You wrote, "I also believe in acting for the greater good rather than a rule of "first do no harm"
Did you not mean what you wrote?
I was using Taximom5's definition from a previous post. In it she said that she believed in "first do no harm" by which she meant that as she believes vaccinations are intrinsically dangerous she will not vaccinate despite the disease risk.
I have not seen evidence to show that vaccines are dangerous (I know that the standard answer on these threads is "but there is no real data, we can't trust the results, people can make the statistics look the way they want, the professionals only do what they're told to and the big companies don't care if your child dies so long as they make money") but I have seen plenty of evidence showing that vaccination-preventable diseases are dangerous.
Perhaps I'm just more community spirited than you? I feel a responsibility towards children in the community and not just my own daughter. In making a decision I think of her first and then weight the decision on the wider repercussions too. If I believed her immune system to be second to none and was completely confident that if she caught a childhood disease she would recover well from it, why would I make her cry getting the jab? Because of herd immunity. Science shows that by not vaccinating my own daughter I increase the risk for the rest of the population.
If we take "first do no harm" literally it means that we wouldn't get much done at all. For example, my daughter does not always want to practice playing her ukulele and so when I insist she gets upset. She actually really loves playing when she gets started so the push is worthwhile. Her guinea pig died yesterday and she has cried her eyes out tonight and struggled to sleep. Should I have prevented her from having the pet in the first place? Do you know how many people die each year from using the stairs? I think they are probably more dangerous than vaccinations.