Is anyone out there learned in the area of children's vaccinations. I know, I work for the NHS but... other parental opinions are sought in this case. I didn't vaccinate my eldest for MMR until 8 months past the due date (at the time the whole MMR scare thing was going on) but youngest is now overdue and has an allergy to eggs. I've been told that the MMR vacc is cultured in albumen. Can someone confirm or deny?? ta
classic individual focused thinking that. Vaccinations are a matter of public health though, it only makes sense when looking at a population scale.
Let's just hope your daughters don't get rubella while pregnant.
As for your question Mezzo it looks like it's ok:
Egg allergy and the MMR vaccine
The MMR vaccine is made using a protein related to egg.
Recent evidence shows that it is safe to give the MMR vaccine to nearly all children, even to those who have a very severe reaction to eggs.2
If your child has a severe allergy to eggs, your GP or nurse can make special arrangements to give your child the MMR vaccine safely, such as in a hospital.
Probably best to talk to your doctor about it.
Mezzo, This is one of my areas... It depends on what type of allergic response the child has had to eggs, and their management is graded accordingly. For eg. if they have had an anaphylactic reaction then you should have them immunised in hospital. The only children who need to be vaccinated in hospital are those with an allergy to eggs in whom previous exposure led to cardio-respiratory reactions. Also, those with chronic active asthma should be done in hospital.
Although anaphylaxis from the egg albumin unlikely, they will be in the right place if there's a problem. If the egg allergy was a mild skin rash, they are probably ok to have in general practice. The guidelines changed last year, wherey more atopic children could be done in their own surgery. But please seek advice from your own surgery, doubt there is medical insurance cover here!!!
All three of my children have had all available vacinations.
You just cant risk not having them done. The risks associated with not having them, far outweigh anything else...In my opinion.
All three of mine, now 18, 15, 14 had all of their vaccinations at the times allocated. Their ages at the time escape me now...
I didnt hesitate or question it at all. I guess I put my trust implicitely in the medical profession.... None of mine have suffered any after effects or problems.. maybe we were just lucky, but I would have never even considered NOT having them done at the time..
... it was hard though, seeing the needle go into my little babies arms, I had to look away.. but believe that it was the best way of protecting them..
All 3 of mine have been fully vaccinated.
My 11 year old son has Autistic Spectrum Disorders and they began to show shortly after the MMR. Was it connected? Who knows?
Would I still have him vaccinated if I could go back and choose again? Damn right I would. There isn't any conclusive proof that MMR causes ASDs, however, there is proof that measles, mumps and rubella can be disabling and/or deadly.
IMO, not a tough choice.
How do you feel about sponging off others? (Is there another expression used in the UK?)
You got the benefit of vaccination (disease is low because most people are vaccinated), and avoided the risks (vaccination risks are low, but even so you avoided them by not vaccinating your children. You expected the parents of children that your children associated with to take the risks of vaccination).
Weeelll....
Yes, it's an emotive and personal topic, yes, "sponging" is maybe a bit strong, but the point is reasonable I think.
Sometimes we have to subsume our personal preferences for the good of society - vaccinations is a very good example. And if you choose to accept the benefit of vaccinations without contributing to that benefit, it's in some ways like choosing to accept jobseeker benefits without seeking a job.
To me, refusing to have vaccinations done, all other things being equal, is like refusing to accept evolution and choosing to believe in raw Creationism - it's at the least an eccentric decision, going against all the evidence, and may even be harmful if too many people decide the same way.
Can't comment on the use of 'sponging off' cause I don't know what it means and it's not in the dictionary... But timbp does have a point.
Refusing to vaccinate your children (without a pretty, pretty good reason) is, AFAIC, anti-social behaviour.
And as soon as too high a number of people have that egocentric behaviour, you're at risk of ruining the benefits of the vaccination program, one of them being in some cases to eradicate the disease all together; you put your kids at risk of contracting the disease, and the whole community under the threat of an outbreak of the disease (which has not only human consequences but is also a very ineffective way to use medical resources).
No. You don't put the community at risk. Just your own children and the children of other parents who have also chosen not to vaccinate their kids.
If the community have all been vaccinated then they won't contract the illness.
This is still a personal parenting decision, as such it should be based on the pro's and con's of what the parent considers the best course of action for their own child. There has been concern about the MMR being linked to other problems (Autism mainly). It is the parent's job to weigh the reality of that against the reality of their child maybe dying from one of the illnesses they could contract if they don't have the MMR. This is a deadly serious and extremely difficult decision. I feel it is unfair to use peer pressure to brow beat someone into making that decision. A free choice should be just that; free.
that's not quite exact.
1. There are some people who have genuine reasons not to be vaccinated, i.e. if they are severely allergic to one of the components of the vaccine.
2. Vaccinations are not 100% efficient and there are still a small number of people who will develop the disease if they are exposed to it (although they have been vaccinated).
Those people rely on the immunisation of others not to be exposed to and develop the disease. More info from WHO here.
Well if you look at current scientific evidence of the risk of the MMR vaccine vs the risk of each disease, it would be pretty irresponsible not to vaccinate your children. There's nothing extremely difficult about making that decision as far as I am concerned.
Of course you could choose to believe some scary rumours that haven't been backed up by any scientific study...
is vaccination a free choice in the UK? In France, some children vaccinations are mandatory, while others are 'strongly recommended'.
Just what we need in an already over nannified state - laws forcing parents to vacinate their kids. Whilst I recognise the medical arguments that are being made, we are also aware that the medical profession don't always get it right. Just ask one of the thousands of people who's mothers were perscribed Thalidomide for morning sickness
I can see that this conversation is just going to start going in circles. I've made my points about freedom, you have made yours points about the greater good - neither of us is going to change our POV. So, I'm stepping away from it now.
Up to you of course but it's a pity since you make a valid point:
however supported by a rather weak and emotional (the mad smiley) example:
Thalidomide was prescribed at the end of the 50's and early 60's. While I would never said that this cannot happen again, the laws and processes in place to release a drug on the market today ensure that the risk of such a thing happening is as low as possible (dare I say, practicable?).
I'd quite like to have a debate with somebody who genuinely think that vaccinations are evil and whose stance hasn't been influenced by emotions (a sad story of a friend / family member who was the 1 in 1,000,000...).
Of course, that might be difficult to find, because emotions are generally a pretty good hindrance when it comes to making balanced, rational decisions.
But if a bunch of other numpty parents decide to do the same, then lots of other kids will contract it - in other words, you're relying selfishly on other people to do the work for you.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses parents have famously take the personal parenting decision to let their children die rather than give them blood transfusions - no-one claimed they didn't love their children or think they were doing the right thing, but that didn't IMO make them right to do so. It's right for the state to intervene to protect children's lives, and their health in general to a large degree.
Which have been comprehensively proven, at the cost of millions of pounds of taxpayers money, to be rubbish. 10 of the 12 authors of the 1998 paper have retracted their work, and in my view Wakefield should be (at the least) struck off, and preferably imprisoned, for the damage he's caused to the health of the nation.
Sometimes society does not allow parents that freedom of choice - for example, the 14-stone 8-year-old child that may be taken away from his parents to protect his health. Parents are not gods, neither are they generally medical experts.
We've decided to have it done... probably at the gp's since small person has only come out in a rash with eggs so should be okay.....
fabulous debate guys!!!
sorry all but i stand corected by my ex wife, my oldest girl was vaccinated but my youngest wasant,it was at the time of the MMR flair up back in the erley 80s
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks