The ethics of "disease parties" - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 121Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 78 Old 07-13-2014, 06:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
The ethics of "disease parties"

What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?

If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?

Discuss.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 78 Old 07-13-2014, 07:00 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
I'm much more concerned about hospitals spreading antibiotic resistant infections. But that is just me.
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 78 Old 07-13-2014, 08:10 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Maybe?

I don't think it is ethical to place a perfectly healthy child at vaccine risk for a disease they do not have and have virtually no chance of getting (say diphtheria).

In some ways, the opposite holds true - is it fair to place a child at measles risks if their overall chance of getting measles is very, very low? Probably not.

As prevalence of disease rises, it makes more sense to place them at disease risk.

In a nutshell, the more prevalent the disease and the milder the disease, the more reasonable it becomes to attend disease parties.



I have never attended a disease party with the intention of getting the kids sick. Chicken pox found us, thank goodness.

I would let the girls attend a rubella party. I would be thrilled, actually, and I would keep a close eye on them afterwards and not let them leave the house while they were contagious (I would hate to spread it to pregnant women). I would brush up on my rubella knowledge to ensure I did this safely - but otherwsie, yup, thrilled. Rubella is not very common (some speculate that could change) and rubella is very, very mild in non-fetuses.

I have let my children with chicken pox play with others. It was always at someones house and they always knew we had chicken pox (indeed, it is a pet peeve of mine when people go places while sick without checking if that is ok with the hostess). The hostesses kids were always healthy and school age. I would not have done it if there was a pregnant woman, newborn, immunocompromised person, etc in the house, even if the other parents wanted to. I know better, even if they don't.

In any event, I think it is an ethical gray zone. To each their own.
serenbat 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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-14-2014 at 12:00 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#4 of 78 Old 07-13-2014, 09:15 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
The entire concept of giving a healthy person a medical prophylactic as a vaccine which is known to cause disease, damage, permanent disability and death is an ethical problem.
Mirzam, serenbat and samaxtics like this.
applejuice is offline  
#5 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 07:39 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
The entire concept of giving a healthy person a medical prophylactic as a vaccine which is known to cause disease, damage, permanent disability and death is an ethical problem.


Doing the above is okay but a fully consented (by both parties) exposure of children to chickenpox calls for punishment. Good grief.

In a day and age where the third leading cause of death is medical care, where sick people go to hospital and acquire disease there (re Deborah's post) and where there are signs reminding medical staff to wash their hands and yet still many fail to do so, we have questions about the legality of exposing children to what used to be described in medical books for eons as benign childhood diseases.
samaxtics is online now  
#6 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Maybe?

I don't think it is ethical to place a perfectly healthy child at vaccine risk for a disease they do not have and have virtually no chance of getting (say diphtheria).

In some ways, the oppostie holds true - is it fair to place a child at measles risks if their overall chance of getting measles is very, very low? Probably not.

As prevalence of disease rises, it makes more sense to place them at disease risk.

In a nutshell, the more prevalent the disease and the milder the disease, the more reasonable it becomes to attend disease parties.



I have never attended a disease party with the intention of getting the kids sick. Chicken pox found us, thank goodness.

I would let the girls attend a rubella party. I would be thrilled, actually, and I would keep a close eye on them afterwards and not let them leave the house while they were contagious (I would hate to spread it to pregnant women). I would brush up on my rubella knowledge to ensure I did this safely - but otherwsie, yup, thrilled. Rubella is not very common (some speculate that could change) and rubella is very, very mild in non-fetuses.

I have let my children with chicken pox play with others. It was always at someones house and they always knew we had chicken pox (indeed, it is a pet peeve of mine when people go places while sick without checking if that is ok with the hostess). The hostesses kids were always healthy and school age. I would not have done it if there was a pregnant woman, newborn, immunocompromised person, etc in the house, even if the other parents wanted to. I know better, even if they don't.

In any event, I think it is an ethical gray zone. To each their own.
You can't interpret risk like that. Their risk is low because they live in a mostly vaccinated population. That would change if we stopped vaccinating. I've asked this before. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Doctors tell parents "the risk right now is pretty low that they would get measles" so everyone stops vaccinating for the MMR. In 4 years you would have 16 million children with no immunity to measles and an outbreak would occur. Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?

I wouldn't be happy if my son caught chicken pox. Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 09:20 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?

I wouldn't be happy if my son caught chicken pox. Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...
"Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die" Source please.

And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.
Mirzam, applejuice and serenbat like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#8 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 09:34 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.
The mean age for shingles has been dropping, who knows how or why, but the vaccine has changed the age dynamic for getting chickenpox/shingles.
serenbat and samaxtics like this.
applejuice is offline  
#9 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 11:01 AM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I think that for diseases like chicken pox it's important to expose your child young if you aren't doing the vaccination. The risks of complications increase after puberty and exposure at some point is certain so early exposure is important. There are actually quite a few disease families that aren't vaccinated for that are common but have little effect before puberty and a lot after that I would expose my child to if I had another. Luckily beinh in childcare and public school exposed my dd to many of these young. I would not choose to expose my child to most live active viruses that are vaccine preventable but I don't see the choice to do so as being any different than my choice to weigh the pros and cons of vaccinations and choose vaccination instead.
One_Girl is online now  
#10 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 11:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
"Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die" Source please.

And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.
Death/hospitalization rates for measles have been linked and discussed ad nauseam on these forums.

Even if you wanted to use Europe's more conservative stats of 1 death per 3,000 cases you'd still be looking at over 5,300 deaths in an outbreak that hit 16 million children. Just in the US alone.

As for shingles, there have been studies that show that children vaccinated for chickenpox are 79% less likely to get shingles than unvaccinated children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23922376

Similar results were found after studying children with leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1658650

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 11:08 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...
You do know the shingles vaccine is for everyone either? Some can't have it and that boost they use to get from being around children was a blessing to many. Some actually miss it!
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#12 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:01 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Shingles vaccine is not covered by most insurance companies nor by medicare.
serenbat likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#13 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
You can't interpret risk like that. Their risk is low because they live in a mostly vaccinated population. That would change if we stopped vaccinating. I've asked this before. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Doctors tell parents "the risk right now is pretty low that they would get measles" so everyone stops vaccinating for the MMR. In 4 years you would have 16 million children with no immunity to measles and an outbreak would occur. Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?
Yes, I can intrepret it that way.

I choose to use current stats for risk assessment - not historical stats, not projections of what might happen if everyone stopped vaccinating.

I sense that a lot of arguements with vaccines come down to personal choice versus public health. Your arguement (above) is really related to public health - but public health is second to me from personal health.

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  
#14 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Shingles vaccine is not covered by most insurance companies nor by medicare.
Kind of ironic. Drive up the shingles rate in virtually everyone over 20 through mass chicken pox vaccination, then refuse to pay (assuming the shingles vaccine works - it is only 50% effective) for the mess you created.
applejuice and serenbat 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  
#15 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Yes, I can intrepret it that way.

I choose to use current stats for risk assessment - not historical stats, not projections of what might happen if everyone stopped vaccinating.

I sense that a lot of arguements with vaccines come down to personal choice versus public health. Your arguement (above) is really related to public health - but public health is second to me from personal health.
Had read the bolded part of your statement as it being unfair to place a child at risk of measles vaccine, whoops.

Still, if there was an outbreak that effected millions of people your child would almost certainly be exposed and get measles. So your child benefits from the rest of us keeping vaccine rates high. I know non vaxxers say they don't care whether other people vaccinate or not.... but I'm not buying it. That's easy to say when the vast majority still vaccinate thus keeping most of the dangerous diseases at bay.

If Polio, diphtheria, and yes even measles came back that risk benefit analysis would be in overwhelming favor of you vaccinating- something most non vaxxers want to avoid at all cost.

Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Kind of ironic. Drive up the shingles rate in virtually everyone over 20 through mass chicken pox vaccination, then refuse to pay (assuming the shingles vaccine works - it is only 50% effective) for the mess you created.
Shingles rates were going up before the vaccine was introduced, and has even gone up in countries that do not vaccinate for chicken pox.

There is no evidence as of yet that vaccinating for chickenpox has resulted in an increase rate of shingles.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#17 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 12:44 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Had read the bolded part of your statement as it being unfair to place a child at risk of measles vaccine, whoops.

I think it is unfair to subject a child to measles parties or measles vaccines, when the chances of them needing either is quite remote.


Still, if there was an outbreak that effected millions of people your child would almost certainly be exposed and get measles. So your child benefits from the rest of us keeping vaccine rates high. I know non vaxxers say they don't care whether other people vaccinate or not.... but I'm not buying it. That's easy to say when the vast majority still vaccinate thus keeping most of the dangerous diseases at bay.

If Polio, diphtheria, and yes even measles came back that risk benefit analysis would be in overwhelming favor of you vaccinating- something most non vaxxers want to avoid at all cost.

Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children.
The bottom portion is really messy. Do you want to get into the ethics of herd immunity, which diseases or vaccines apply, and the fun of not being able to get a separate measles vaccine, even if I wanted to? How about whose call vaccination of very rare diseases should be - mine or my childrens when they are of age? (it is their body). What about the fact that I would have actually preferred if my kids did get chicken pox, rubella, mumps, maybe even hep. a to a shot? That I would have preferred they had life long immunity under their belt - but that this option was taken away from me by vaxxers? We have gone round on herd immunity ethics so many times - there is no agreement and I doubt there will be.
applejuice, serenbat and samaxtics 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  
#18 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 10:18 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?
The ethics are gray, as is this risk-benefit factor. Where there are risks and benefits from which to choose, no, it should not be illegal. The parents need to have a say in which risks and benefits they are willing to take on.

And . . . illegal? What would that look like? Chicken pox parties turning into underground, password-protected speakeasies? Jailhouses filling up with crunchy soccer moms and small children? (Maybe they'd have better luck getting exposure there. . . )

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?
Why is punishment in quotes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?
Absolutely not. When you take a baby out, you do so at your own risk. I'm sure that by now you're familiar with this piece. http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildre...ag/chickenpox/

Karen Ernst was rightfully called out in the comments for indignantly insisting that everyone at a social function be vaccinated for chicken pox to protect her newborn. One commenter astutely pointed out that "the risk you exposed your 10d
infant to was completely your choice." Harsh? Yes. But it's absolutely true.

A mom who makes this choice has no fundamental right to lash out at people who chose to try for an earlier, (and therefore safer), case of the chicken pox virus. Right now, we know that the chicken pox vaccine may provide 14 years of immunity. http://aapgrandrounds.aappublication...0/2/13.extract There are no recommended boosters after this time, so people run the risk of catching a dangerous case of chicken pox at a later age. So Ernst is demanding this kind of medical risk-taking from people just so she can take a newborn to a party and expose him to countless other pathogens? I'm saving my sympathies.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#19 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 10:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
The bottom portion is really messy. Do you want to get into the ethics of herd immunity, which diseases or vaccines apply, and the fun of not being able to get a separate measles vaccine, even if I wanted to? How about whose call vaccination of very rare diseases should be - mine or my childrens when they are of age? (it is their body). What about the fact that I would have actually preferred if my kids did get chicken pox, rubella, mumps, maybe even hep. a to a shot? That I would have preferred they had life long immunity under their belt - but that this option was taken away from me by vaxxers? We have gone round on herd immunity ethics so many times - there is no agreement and I doubt there will be.
You didn't answer my question. If you want to start a discussion about age of consent for certain vaccines that could make for an interesting spin off thread perhaps.

"Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children?"

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 10:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

And . . . illegal? What would that look like? Chicken pox parties turning into underground, password-protected speakeasies? Jailhouses filling up with crunchy soccer moms and small children? (Maybe they'd have better luck getting exposure there. . . )




Absolutely not. When you take a baby out, you do so at your own risk. I'm sure that by now you're familiar with this piece. http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildre...ag/chickenpox/

Karen Ernst was rightfully called out in the comments for indignantly insisting that everyone at a social function be vaccinated for chicken pox to protect her newborn. One commenter astutely pointed out that "the risk you exposed your 10d
infant to was completely your choice." Harsh? Yes. But it's absolutely true.

A mom who makes this choice has no fundamental right to lash out at people who chose to try for an earlier, (and therefore safer), case of the chicken pox virus. Right now, we know that the chicken pox vaccine may provide 14 years of immunity. http://aapgrandrounds.aappublication...0/2/13.extract There are no recommended boosters after this time, so people run the risk of catching a dangerous case of chicken pox at a later age. So Ernst is demanding this kind of medical risk-taking from people just so she can take a newborn to a party and expose him to countless other pathogens? I'm saving my sympathies.
I was thinking more along the lines of a fine, or having to compensate for any medical bills that their child may have caused another child to accrue.

As for the last part, intent matters. There is a big difference between someone taking their child who they had no idea was contagious with chickenpox to the grocery store vs someone taking their child who they deliberately exposed to chickenpox to the grocery store and infecting someone.

Theres a reason why someone who gets a blow out and runs off the road killing someone gets a very different sentence than someone who hires a hit man to kill some. In both scenarios the result is the death of a person, but the intent is very different.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 78 Old 07-14-2014, 11:23 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Kathy - you want your kids to be exposed to illnesses so they don't get sick later?

There's a way to do that where they take a weakened version of the virus (that is still likely to induce an immune response but less likely to get you sick) store it in solution with some preservatives and send it to your doctor. They can then use a sterile needle to introduce it into your kids body......

Been done for years and it's been demonstrated to work quite well......
Imakcerka and teacozy like this.
prosciencemum is online now  
#22 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 06:29 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
I believe I covered the ethics of that method in post number 4 of this thread.


The thread is about ethics of deliberately exposing children to a disease that -
1. is better handled as a child,
2. the child will be exposed to eventually,
3. and the immunity of having the disease will produce lifelong immunity to future exposures as opposed to the transient, temporal, and undependable immunity from vaccination along with known/unknown and unacknowledged side effects.

Last edited by applejuice; 07-15-2014 at 01:31 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#23 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 06:39 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Kathy - you want your kids to be exposed to illnesses so they don't get sick later?

There's a way to do that where they take a weakened version of the virus (that is still likely to induce an immune response but less likely to get you sick) store it in solution with some preservatives and send it to your doctor. They can then use a sterile needle to introduce it into your kids body......

Been done for years and it's been demonstrated to work quite well......

on the sarcasm.


I want them to be exposed to certain diseases because it will confer stronger and longer lasting immunity than the vaccines.

I also believe there may be some benefits to diseases (example: mumps and lower ovarian cancer risk, chicken pox and less allergies).

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-15-2014 at 06:55 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#24 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 06:53 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I was thinking more along the lines of a fine, or having to compensate for any medical bills that their child may have caused another child to accrue.

As for the last part, intent matters. There is a big difference between someone taking their child who they had no idea was contagious with chickenpox to the grocery store vs someone taking their child who they deliberately exposed to chickenpox to the grocery store and infecting someone.

Theres a reason why someone who gets a blow out and runs off the road killing someone gets a very different sentence than someone who hires a hit man to kill some. In both scenarios the result is the death of a person, but the intent is very different.
Consent matters as well.

If i tackle you for no reason on the street and without consent, it would be considered assault.

If I tackle you during a rugby match - it is fine. Consent is assumed and it is part of the game.

With a chicken pox party, consent is given. You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well.

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  
#25 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Consent matters as well.

If i tackle you for no reason on the street and without consent, it would be considered assault.

If I tackle you during a rugby match - it is fine. Consent is assumed and it is part of the game.

With a chicken pox party, consent is given. You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well.
Of course consent matters, but consent is very different when talking about a minor child vs adult.

Lock an adult in a room against their will and refuse to let them leave and you're facing some very severe charges. Do that to a child/teen and it's called timeout or grounding depending on the age.

"You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well."

Not really. There are limits to what you can consent to. It's not an all or nothing deal. I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo. Or any number of things.

Where chickenpox parties fall in all this is debatable. But measles parties, for me, would fall on the negligence/illegal side of the grey zone.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#26 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 02:04 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Not really. There are limits to what you can consent to. It's not an all or nothing deal. I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo. Or any number of things.


I have NO idea where you get this but yes as a parent you can consent for these things, you can let your child ride in the back seat of a pickup (many states have NO objections), be in a car seat or not use a seatbelt, the difference is you can be charged with a criminal act/violation in "some" states, if you are caught.

You can consent to have your child tanned, tattooed and even hair lasered off, depends on where you are.

45 states have restrictions - last time I looked we have 50! http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-piercing.aspx
want to ride in the back of a truck? - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cargoareas
need a child with a tan? http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...trictions.aspx

your arguments towards what Kathy said are VERY weak!
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#27 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I have NO idea where you get this but yes as a parent you can consent for these things, you can let your child ride in the back seat of a pickup (many states have NO objections), be in a car seat or not use a seatbelt, the difference is you can be charged with a criminal act/violation in "some" states, if you are caught.

You can consent to have your child tanned, tattooed and even hair lasered off, depends on where you are.

45 states have restrictions - last time I looked we have 50! http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-piercing.aspx
want to ride in the back of a truck? - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cargoareas
need a child with a tan? http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...trictions.aspx

your arguments towards what Kathy said are VERY weak!
Serenbat, do you know where I live?

I absolutely could not legally consent to my child riding in the back of a pickup or to them getting a permanent tattoo. Both of those things are ILLEGAL where I live.

Further, ALL 50 states have carseat laws of some kind for infants and children. "All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands require child safety seats for infants and children fitting specific criteria." http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...fety_laws.html

If you really think you could legally put a 4 month old baby in the back of a pickup in any state and barrel down the highway at 70 MPH.... I don't know what to say.

Also, IIRC, Kathy lives in Alberta (let me know if I'm mistaken) and putting a young child in the back of a pickup is illegal there as well due to certain restrictions. So that would be something she could not legally consent to there.

"A person may ride in the bed of a truck: (1) when the nature of the person’s occupation requires the person to ride in the bed; or (2) when the person is engaged or employed in agricultural, horticultural, or livestock raising operations and riding in the bed of the truck is related to one of these operations." http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/seat...uickjumpCanada

To pick something that is illegal in every state, lets say circumcising a baby girl. Can't do it in the US, even with parental consent. I am also almost certain it would be illegal for me to buy my child cigarettes to smoke if they were under the age of 18, even if they had my permission to do so.

Point is, parental consent has limits. The fact that we have the ability to consent to vaccines does not mean we have the ability to consent to anything and everything.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#28 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 02:47 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Serenbat, do you know where I live? That is why I asked!

I absolutely could not legally consent to my child riding in the back of a pickup or to them getting a permanent tattoo. Both of those things are ILLEGAL where I live. But it's not everyplace!

Further, ALL 50 states have carseat laws of some kind for infants and children. "All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands require child safety seats for infants and children fitting specific criteria." http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...fety_laws.html

If you really think you could legally put a 4 month old baby in the back of a pickup in any state and barrel down the highway at 70 MPH.... I don't know what to say. YES you can, it DOES happen - you need to be caught! This does happen all over, some people get caught, some don't - the assumption you feel this is CONSENT is not the correct word to use!

To pick something that is illegal in every state, lets say circumcising a baby girl. Can't do it in the US, even with parental consent. I am also almost certain it would be illegal for me to buy my child cigarettes to smoke if they were under the age of 18, even if they had my permission to do so.

Again, this is about being "caught" to say it's about consent is the wrong word to use.

Point is, parental consent has limits. The fact that we have the ability to consent to vaccines does not mean we have the ability to consent to anything and everything.
You seem quite confused with the word consent and it's meaning in the examples you used.


ETA- when I strap my child into the car there is NO ONE I give "consent" to. The act does not require consent. At a medical office for a procedure or to a host of a party for a service I can GIVE consent.
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#29 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 03:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
[QUOTE=serenbat;17815154]You seem quite confused with the word consent and it's meaning in the examples you used.


No, I'm not confused.

Your argument is that as long as you don't get caught you can legally consent to anything? What?

And yes I would have to give consent to a tattoo artist to tattoo my child. I would also theoretically have to give someone consent to take my child for a ride in the back of a pickup. Except I legally can't. I would theoretically give a doctor consent to circumcise my daughter-except I can't. Etc.

I could consent to my child drinking under the age of 21 in my state though. So there's that.

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

Last edited by teacozy; 07-15-2014 at 04:19 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 78 Old 07-15-2014, 04:59 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
[quote=teacozy;17815450]
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post


No, I'm not confused. The way you word it the FRIST time is confusing the word use in the context you used.

Your argument is that as long as you don't get caught you can legally consent to anything? What?

And yes I would have to give consent to a tattoo artist to tattoo my child. I would also theoretically have to give someone consent to take my child for a ride in the back of a pickup. Except I legally can't. WRONG! I would theoretically give a doctor consent to circumcise my daughter-except I can't. Etc.

I could consent to my child drinking under the age of 21 in my state though. So there's that.

What you originally wrote -
I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo.


There is a vast difference in how you use the word and how you wrote it the first time! - consent (give permission to another to do an act) - YES you can give consent, you can do it for a host of things, you are in trouble if you are caught and if it's illegal where you are, but bottom line is YOU give it to another to do so.

Who on earth do you give consent to for YOU to put your child in or out of a car seat? UNLESS you are giving consent for another person to preform the act - no one from the state (no matter where you live) comes to your home for YOU to do the act. That is NOT consent. You are in violation if you drive and IF you are caught and the child is not in properly.

This list of example you gave at just that a list. You get in trouble if it is a violation within your state IF you are caught.

Giving someone consent for what ever reason is just that - an act to perform on your behalf. Some places things are legal some places they are not. The issue is being caught IF it is illegal where you are.

Murder happens all the time and people are never caught. You are naive if you think tattoos, riding in pick up, female genital mutilation, etc are not happening here in the US.

Context matters.

 

 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  
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