Non-Vaxing and Vaxing Parents - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 110 Old 11-23-2013, 06:35 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

prosciencemum likes this.
moderatemom is offline  
#62 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 04:53 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)

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


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#63 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 01:00 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
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. ;) 

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#64 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 01:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)

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

applejuice and dinahx like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#65 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 01:14 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
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 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#66 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 02:20 PM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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. 

EineMutti is offline  
#67 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 05:21 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)

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!


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#68 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 05:31 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
dinahx likes this.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#69 of 110 Old 11-24-2013, 05:57 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
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

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#70 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 12:38 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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. 

EineMutti is offline  
#71 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 05:00 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)

  

 

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.  

serenbat and OrmEmbar like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#72 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 05:10 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
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!


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#73 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 05:30 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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. 

EineMutti is offline  
#74 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 06:14 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
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!


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#75 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 06:28 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

EineMutti is offline  
#76 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 06:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
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?  

OrmEmbar likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#77 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 06:37 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
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


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#78 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 06:52 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
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.  

Taximom5 and OrmEmbar like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#79 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 07:03 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
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.

Taximom5 is online now  
#80 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 07:10 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
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.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#81 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 07:19 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
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 would like to point out that even when a selective/delayer thinks a vaccine might be a good idea for their child or even for society, they are often unable to vaccinate.  

 

If a measles vaccine was available separately from MMR, I might have gone for it (or not - I am a little up in the air on it).  However there is no separate measles vaccine, is there?  While I would not do tetanus, a number of people would - once again there is no tetanus-only choice.

 

In some states and countries it is easier to be non-vax than selective-delayed in terms of government paperwork.

 

It is annoying beyond belief when someone wants to vaccinate, but can't and then others turn around and point fingers (not saying you are doing this, I am speaking in general)


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#82 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 07:46 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Here, you can get separate vaccines. In Edinburgh, that is almost two hours away and you would have to pay privately. Not really an option for everyone, but I know some people who did it. the NHS covers selective and delayed vaccines only if this is medically necessary. We would have got it for free, I think, but not anymore, as DS isn't at such a high risk anymore. 

 

After giving this whole morality issue another thought, and read some more on morality (I studied the sociology of morality a few years ago, it was amazingly interesting), it's really not that simple.

 

BOTH sides act morally according to their information and all facts are chosen facts. It is quite impossible to put one group to a higher morality level than the other if both are convinced that they are doing the right thing for EVERYONE. 

 

Vaxxers can easily say their choice is more moral and back this up. But so can non-vaxxers.

 

Morality just means that your choice is based on the question: "What if everyone did this?" "What would be the global consequences?"

 

Non-vaxxers seem to firmly believe that most vaccines are not necessary and actually harmful, so their decision is just as righteous. The fact that I personally disagree with people who don't vaccinate wouldn't give me the right to deem their choice immoral.

 

(Unless they spread diseases deliberately through organised parties, but as PP said, that is another issue. Clear line.)

EineMutti is offline  
#83 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 10:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
TakeItSnape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here's a good example of why I am chosing not to vaccinate. What if, such a big 'if', my child was one of these poor souls who have a deadly reaction? I would rather take the risk, properly nourish them, keep them clean, happy and healthy, rather than something like this happen.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57169475-78/webb-flu-son-effects.html.csp

 

I have received 1 flu shot in the past. Call is coincidence if you'd like, but I was sick for a week about a week following. I have not gotten one since. I am also learning to eat better and use more natural means of helping myself when I am sick. So far this year, just sniffles, and I attribute those to my stage in pregnancy.

 

To be honest, I cannot remember the last time I was sick, especially to the point of needing to see a doctor.

 

Another secret? I wash my hands, but never with soap and I don't use sanitizer either. I don't know how many colds/flus/germs (working at a children's museum) I have been exposed to, but I haven't been healthier. Some may think this is disgusting, but I think it's realistic, as goes to show, I havent been sick in an office that's all been sick.

TakeItSnape is offline  
#84 of 110 Old 11-25-2013, 11:12 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Not sanitising might actually benefit some healthy people in the long run (if there isn't something really nasty going round). Who really knows. For an immunocompromised child who has to stay and visit hospital all the time, they are life-savers.

 

I have very little faith in the "kindness of mother nature" considering viruses and bacterial infections. Or in the ability of the human immune system to be strengthened through exposure to diseases. Some of them are devastating for so many people. HIV, EBV, measles, RSV, ebola, smallpox, bird flu, typhus, leprosy, swine flu, rota, noro, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, tuberculosis, plague, malaria, Spanish flu, cholera, diphtheria, etc, etc. Millions of people have been wiped out by them and I applaud people who invented vaccines and at least protect us against some of them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

 

This is one of the reasons why I vaccinate: justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/micha-is-dead.html

 

But to me, it isn't an article in the news, this is IRL reality. I know them.

EineMutti is offline  
#85 of 110 Old 11-29-2013, 01:16 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

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.

God I have been reading this thread after a much needed several week hiatus from this place and statements like this make me want to vomit. It is so easy for someone who believes there is minimal risk involved with vaccinating to hop on the "It's my duty as a citizen" bandwagon. It's such an easy way to toot your own horn and congratulate yourself on how you are participating in the social contract. All you posters that have said this (and you are all provaxers) can you try and imagine this scenario. You know your priority if first and formost to your own children - that is not to say that you do not care deeply about other children or humanity as a whole. But lets say society is asking you to do something that you believe in your soul is harmful to your child. Would you do it? Let me answer for you NO. The above only applies to those who believe vaccines are beneficial and their safety far outweighs their risks. I don't believe vaccines are better for my kids your kids or any kids and I have many obvious (to me anyway) reasons not to vaccinate them which is why I don't!. I participate in the social contract in plenty of other ways.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#86 of 110 Old 11-29-2013, 01:38 PM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
 

 above only applies to those who believe vaccines are beneficial and their safety far outweighs their risks. I don't believe vaccines are better for my kids your kids or any kids and I have many obvious (to me anyway) reasons not to vaccinate them which is why I don't!. I participate in the social contract in plenty of other ways.

 

I am pro-vax, but this exactly what I said, too. Non-vaxxers don't seem to believe that it benefits anyone, therefore THEIR decision is just as morally acceptable as the decision to vaccinate. 

 

I haven't come across a non-vaxxer of a healthy child who says: "I know the benefits outweigh the risks, everyone should vaccinate and take the miniscule side effect risk. Everyone but ME and MY children, we will just rely on herd immunity". 

 

For the pro-vaxxers, who cannot have their child vaccinated because the child is too sick, non-vaxxing LOOKS selfish and immoral. Or for the mums of newborns, whose babies got infected by measles from non-vaxxed kids and are now dying of SSPE, it LOOKS selfish, too. Those parents can't be blamed for having those thoughts. 

 

But the decision not to vaccinate is usually made after a long, thoughtful process and idea that not vaccinating benefits society. 

EineMutti is offline  
#87 of 110 Old 11-29-2013, 02:11 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
 

God I have been reading this thread after a much needed several week hiatus from this place and statements like this make me want to vomit. It is so easy for someone who believes there is minimal risk involved with vaccinating to hop on the "It's my duty as a citizen" bandwagon. It's such an easy way to toot your own horn and congratulate yourself on how you are participating in the social contract. All you posters that have said this (and you are all provaxers) can you try and imagine this scenario. You know your priority if first and formost to your own children - that is not to say that you do not care deeply about other children or humanity as a whole. But lets say society is asking you to do something that you believe in your soul is harmful to your child. Would you do it? Let me answer for you NO. The above only applies to those who believe vaccines are beneficial and their safety far outweighs their risks. I don't believe vaccines are better for my kids your kids or any kids and I have many obvious (to me anyway) reasons not to vaccinate them which is why I don't!. I participate in the social contract in plenty of other ways.

 

What really floors me about your telling me that I make you want to vomit is that you actually seem to agree with me.  If you DID believe that vaccines were better for your kids and my kids and everyone, then you would do the same exact thing I did, which was to vaccinate your kids.  I actually was trying to say that I don't really think of it as an "altruistic" thing, I think of it as science that works if everyone who can participate does.  That is MY belief, and I act accordingly.  Naturally if your belief differs then your behavior differs, and I'm not judging that.  I'm so glad your differing belief doesn't make ME want to vomit or someone around here would have an awful lot of cleaning up to do.

prosciencemum and chknlovr like this.
moderatemom is offline  
#88 of 110 Old 11-30-2013, 08:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

I think of it as science that works if everyone who can participate does.  

Unfortunately, the "science" doesn't work as advertised, because the pharmaceutical industry has lied about both the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as well as the safety and efficacy of Tamiflu, and many, many other medications whose sales ride on fear-mongering put out by...the pharmaceutical industry.

In case anyone could possibly believe that vaccine manufacturers have been honest:

http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/featured/325-jlme-symposium

Taximom5 is online now  
#89 of 110 Old 11-30-2013, 08:20 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Unfortunately, the "science" doesn't work as advertised, because the pharmaceutical industry has lied about both the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as well as the safety and efficacy of Tamiflu, and many, many other medications whose sales ride on fear-mongering put out by...the pharmaceutical industry.

In case anyone could possibly believe that vaccine manufacturers have been honest:

http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/featured/325-jlme-symposium

Vaccines are in fact effective through herd immunity, which is why it's important for everyone who can be vaccinated to do so. 

moderatemom is offline  
#90 of 110 Old 12-01-2013, 09:42 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,437
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

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. 

 

This is just my two cents on this topic.  I think it depends. Obviously, if there is a major outbreak of a serious disease and I vaccinate my child for it, I don't consider that to be altruistic per se. 

 

Vaccinating for the MMR, for example, I think is altruistic (at least for me).  I know that *currently* living in the US my son is very very unlikely to die from measles. I don't think there has been a death in what? 20 years? He is more likely to die from falling out of the bed at this point in time than from measles.  I also know that if too many people think that way, that's no longer going to be true.  It kind of reminds me of people that say "well, my one vote isn't going to make a difference!" during elections.  Yeah, you're probably right that your one vote isn't likely to make a difference. But when you have millions of people that say that exact same thing, it *does* make a difference. So I vaccinate my son for the MMR because I know that that low risk of death will only last if the vast majority of people in a community are immune to a disease.  Ditto Polio and diphtheria. 

 

If the MMR was split up, I would still vaccinate my son for rubella, too.  I know that rubella is a very mild childhood illness, but it can be devastating for pregnant women and I would want to do my part in making sure my son doesn't inadvertently spread it to someone who is pregnant. I think that's an altruistic way of thinking as well. 

 

Ones I don't think of as necessarily being "altruistic" might include vaccines like Hib. That disease scares the heck out of me. But it's not so common and contagious that I think I am doing the community a huge favor by vaccinating my son for it (at least I think I've read that generally Hib is not a very contagious disease).  Tentanus is another example. I know I'm not helping the community at large by vaccinating my son for it, I'm doing it because it also scares the crap out of me.  

 

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off