We were discussing the Disneryland measles outbreak at work, and I was appalled to find some of my co-workers refuse to vaccinate their kids. They (grudgingly) receive the vaccines they need to remain employed, but doubt their safety/necessity for their kids.
I must say, I am absolutley stunned. How can one be a nurse and deny science?
As a nurse, you should darn well know what the scientific method entails and what phrases such as "evidence based" and "peer reviewed" mean.
I have to say, I have lost most of my respect for the nurses and mistrust their judgement; after all, if they deny science, on what premise are they basing their practices?
My kids were vaccinated late. They are homeschooled. We didn't go to Disney. My pdd kid did not get mmr till he was walking and talking. Tdap is the only one that seemed to set him back a few months.
My distrust of the perfect safety and effectiveness of vaccines has to do with that waiver I have to sign and the federal protections in place for the vaccine manufacturers, including the fact that the cdc contracts to pay for leftover flu vaccine and then encourages people to get the shot. That would be considered conflict of interest if they were a person instead of a government / corporate entity.
I'm assuming you meant DTaP and not Tdap. Tdap isn't typically administered until ages 10-11. DTaP does not cause developmental setbacks. I would look for a more legitimate cause.
The CDC/federal govt has 1 major goal in all of this: TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC. Your waiver is d/t a state regulation, not a federal one. The state has an interest in the public's health too.
Can I justify exposing my children to vaccines when I believe the likelihood of harm from them is greater than the likelihood that my children will contract and die/suffer disability from these diseases? No, I cannot.
Do your kids have some kind of major medical issue where they are at greater risk from problems with the vaccines? The rate of serious issues of vaccines is incredibly low in the average kid. Have you looked at the math?
You do realize that the only reason the likelihood of contracting these diseases is low (but not nonexistent) is because your kids are benefiting off the backs of those who got vaccinated. Vaccination doesn't just affect your kid, it affects the health of the community including babies too young to get vaccinated.
Can I justify exposing my children to vaccines when I believe the likelihood of harm from them is greater than the likelihood that my children will contract and die/suffer disability from these diseases? No, I cannot.
You really highlight the core Robles with the anti-vac movement. You are not familiar with any of the morbidity and mortality related to the diseases you are choosing not to immunize against. Instead you are counting on other people immunizing to protect your child. The irony is that as more people think the way you do, the higher your child's risk is.
Let's take some well established data for example:
The risk of a serious complication from the MMR vaccine is 1:1 million. The risk of dying from measles alone if you don't vaccinate is 1:5,000.
I don't know how to do the fancy quotes of only pieces and parts of the post, so I'll just use my own quotation marks. :)
"I assume that the research you've read is peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals? What kind of books have you read? The reason I ask, is that there are many books published on the subject that don't contain even one molecule of scientific data, but only promotes the author's "anti-vaccine" agenda.
[COLOR=#000000]The research and epedimiological data I've reviewed show clear benefits of childhood immunization vaccines. I genuinely don't see much to be conflicted about."[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]Yes, I've read peer-reviewed research. Again, I don't deny the science behind vaccines. Are there benefits? Yes. I don't deny that. However, I refuse to believe that just because something is NOT peer-reviewed it must be invalid. Who would fund major research to study the harmful effects of vaccines? I have serious issues with blindly accepting information just because it's peer-reviewed and discounting all other information just because it's not. I do agree with you, however, that there are some pretty shady books out there. I tried to stick with books with reputable authors and I read both pro- and anti-vaccine books. I wasn't looking to validate an already held belief (I honestly did not have one); I was looking for the truth.
"[/COLOR]Which diseases are you comfortable taking your (children's) and also other people's chances with?
[COLOR=#000000]I honestly think that the only reason you and others don't seem to be very afraid of some of these diseases is because they've become extremely rare in our part of the world. If you knew more people who'd lost their children to these diseases or met people who'd survived them with serious sequelae, you probably would feel differently."[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]Maybe. Maybe not. We can do "what if" all day. What if they chose to manufacture safer vaccines (and yes, I believe it is a choice)? Would I use them? All I can do is work with what IS. Can I justify exposing my children to vaccines when I believe the likelihood of harm from them is greater than the [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]likelihood that my children will contract and die/suffer disability from these diseases? No, I cannot. [/COLOR]
This post is worthless to me in that it's too hard to read and figure out who is saying what to whom.
brownbook, the same theme is increasingly occurring in pets. People are not vaccinating dogs and cats because of fear of adverse reactions, and they believe the "natural immune response" of the animal protects it better than vaccine. . . then wonder why they lose entire litters to parvo.
That article was nothing but an appeal to fear and emotion.
In either case, I did not post here to debate this. At this point, I am 100% comfortable with my decision. I do not deny the risks of some of these diseases, nor do I deny the science behind vaccination. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. The difference between you and I is that I made the decision to look OBJECTIVELY at both sides of the argument. I only posted here to share a point of view that the staunchly pro-vaccine don't seem to take into consideration.
Would you continue to be comfortable with your decision if you found out that one of your children ended up spreading one of these diseases to a newborn, who subsequently died from the illness? That due to your decision not to vaccinate your children, someone else has lost their child?
The risk of dying from measles alone if you don't vaccinate is 1:5,000. >>
Exactly. To rise as the rate of measles increases due to non-vaccination...
That "what you believe" contradicts basic math is the problem, aubrienora. It is 'natural' for humans to have an average lifespan of about 40 years; because of increased understanding and management of disease, it's roughly twice that. It is ironic that your perception of risk is skewed precisely because vaccines have drastically reduced the incidence of those diseases that culled the herd, so to speak.
It's one thing to opt for mineral high colonics on a crystal field in Brazil versus chemo for colon cancer; in that case, your choice affects no one but you. But failing to vaccinate your children puts me and my children at risk--as well as your own.
By the way, you've been vaccinated, I'm going to guess, and lived to tell about it.
Here's what I believe: it should be actionable for health-care providers to promote non evidence-based practices (or, in this case, anti evidence-based practices).
Why do you feel this way? Obviously people are passionate, especially when it involves kids. But here you have good people like BostonFNP posting objective, data-driven rationale, so it seems like this discussion board is a great place to talk about opposing views. You've been here a long time so I would think that one of the reasons you stay is the quality of the community here.
No, IrishizRn, not because the vaccinated child has more rights, but because the non-vaccinated child has choices. The immune suppressed and too-young-to-be-vaccinated child has no choices. They are at the mercy of those who choose not to vaccinate.
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.
So, I admit that I didn't go back and read all 28 pages of this thread, but the thought occurred to me (as it has, probably, to others)....
Why are/were we so freaked out about Ebola, and so blase' about measles? Both are extremely contagious, but the chances of one of our kids 'coming down with' Ebola are pretty darn slim. The measles, however is right in our own back yards; as we can see from the daily news reports, it is spreading through the states like wildfire! If the measles were something where it was required to get into one of those CDC suits, would we sit up and pay attention and protect our kids? Children are directly in the line of fire!
(Please don't jump on this question as a reason to inform/educate me on the difference between Ebola and Measles.)
Why are/were we so freaked out about Ebola, and so blase' about measles? Both are extremely contagious, but the chances of one of our kids 'coming down with' Ebola are pretty darn slim.
It's a great question. Likely because Ebola is more often fatal.
I would only add that measles are far more contagious than Ebola is, actually about 9 times more contagious. And 1:3 people with measles will develop a complication.
mariebailey, MSN, RN
948 Posts
I'm assuming you meant DTaP and not Tdap. Tdap isn't typically administered until ages 10-11. DTaP does not cause developmental setbacks. I would look for a more legitimate cause.
The CDC/federal govt has 1 major goal in all of this: TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC. Your waiver is d/t a state regulation, not a federal one. The state has an interest in the public's health too.