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.
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 2 teens and one young adult.
Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-14-2014 at 12:00 PM.