Nurses children and vaccinations, how do you feel?

[Mistify]

I am on another forum that is very anti-vaccinations for children (or anyone for that matter), and it got me thinking how do nurses and other healthcare workers feel about vaccinations and anti-vaxer's. Most of the posters on that forum are very hostile to anyone in healthcare and no matter what a healthcare worker posts it is always wrong or they are spying for "The Man". They tend to see healthcare workers as uninformed, uneducated, and uncaring. How do you feel about vaccinations for yourself or children? Do you ever have people that are very anti-vaccination and what reasons do they give? And do you think that most people that decline vaccination are informed about or understand the effects of the route they are taking? I am not trying to judge, I am just very curious.

[Rabid Badger, BSN, RN]

Also, if the vaccines are so effective, then my kids will only make the other unvaccinated kids sick. There shouldn't be a public outcry given that the risks should be limited to the population who chooses to accept those risks. Just my .02.

This is untrue. Since no vaccine is 100% effective, there is about 10-30% of vaccinated individuals who did not seroconvert. This is why herd immunity is so important. When you do not vaccinate, you risk not only exposing yourself and your loved ones to the illness, all others who have not been vaccinated, PLUS those 10-30% of vaccinated individuals who did not seroconvert, who depend on the 80% herd immunity to protect them. In addition, you are also potentiall exposing individuals who are either too young, too old, or too immunocompromised to be able to receive the vaccine or to safely seroconvert.

This is why there is a public outcry. You are not only risking those who have made informed consent to refuse the vaccine, but plenty of others who are unaware or unable to protect themselves. Herd immunity for a number of diseases which had been virtually eradicated due to vaccines are now sitting at 60%. This makes the population ripe for an outbreak, and there has been recent evidence to prove this given outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and assorted other goodies that have been unheard of for the last many many years.

Just because it is a rare contagious disease does not mean it won't be tomorrow, especially with the especially tenuous herd immunity rates according to US and Canadian Vaccinating monitoring agencies.

[GardenDove]

You don't have vaccination rates of 60% because of consiencious objection.

I just want to point out: Those who opt out of vaccines for their children oftentimes don't do so because of potential immediate side effects. They are concerned about the long term effects on the immune system, some of the additives in the vaccines that could cause neurological damage, and the fact that some vaccines are derived from ingredients obtain from aborted fetuses. Those are the main reasons I've heard.

My personal concern is that the manipulation of the immune system leaves it in a state of confusion and disorder, leading to the unavailablity of immune response for common illnesseses, or an incorrect response leading to auto immune disorders and allergies.

[hollyvk, BSN]

My nephew had the vaccine for mumps (had all his vaccines and on time) and he still came down with a nasty case of it.

And for us people who are too uneducated and irresponsible to vaccinate themselves for community health's sake, well, if your vaccinations do what they are supposed to do you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

What I am advocating for is that folks make INFORMED decisions. The whole landscape of preventable diseases has changed with the advent of immunizations in the past 60+ years. We've managed to elimminate smallpox worldwide--that's a HUGE victory given its lethal consequences and one that could not be accomplished without high vaccinations rates.

When folks choose to opt out of being vaccinated they usually do so for personal health/belief reasons; what they generally do not do is evaluate their risk of contracting the disease nor consider the size of the pool of other non-immunized persons they are choosing to join that will constitue a host population for the continuation of that particular disease organism.

Take for example pertussis (whooping cough). Infants don't have full protection against it until they've completed the DPT series at around 6 months of age. While it is a serious disease in infants (can be fatal), it is a milder respiratory infection in teenagers and adult. Worldwide, there are 30-50 million pertussis cases and about 300,000 deaths per year (World Health Organization data). Immunity after immunization can wane, resulting in outbreaks, and booster immunization has recently been introduced.

New parents contemplating opting out of DPT for their infant would need to evaluate the risks of receiving the vaccine versus the risk of the infant becoming infected with this organism; factors to consider include: the fact that pertussis is endemic in the US, that outbreaks of it occur on a regular basis (it's a highly infectious disease), that immunity wanes over time resulting in an increase in the pool of teens and adult who can contract and spread the disease, and that treatment of the infection is largely supportive therapy (the coughing spasms last for wks and cause vomitting of stomach contents, hypoxia, and ugly cyanosis in infants).

So if you live in an isolated area, work at home, shop by mail, and home school your kids, you've reduced the number of potential infectious contacts for your infant with this disease. But if you live in an urban or suburban area, or your children attend a school, or you frequent stores to do your shopping, it's easy for this disease to reach your infant.

And if you've taken offense at my stance that you fully evaluate both the basis and the consequences of your decisions, then I hope that at least your anger has made you think about it a bit more deeply. Many vaccines do not confer life-long immunity, but may result in a milder infection. So I assume motorcycle mama that your nephew is neither deaf nor sterile . . . .

Hollyvk, RN, BSN, JD

[hollyvk, BSN]

"Your personal freedom should not come at your community's expense"

Interesting quote. So you can only have "personal" freedom if everyone else agrees with what you are doing??? Quite a dichotomy there.

Personal freedom is whatever you want it to be. You make decisions based on the information available to you, and the reliability of those sources(which these days are VERY questionable). Not based on what someone else thinks you should be doing.

Your personal freedom should not come at your community's expense

The point of my comment was to spark discussion (which it certainly has done). :yelclap:

In this country you have the freedom to opt out of vaccination schemes (perhaps not true elsewhere).

In this country you have the freedom to travel where ever you want (but take your passport if you're crossing the border).

In this country you have the freedom to live where you want.

But that doesn't mean you can drive at 100 miles per hour (traffic laws), or turn your front yard into a used car sales lot (zoning laws), or paint your house purple (home owners' association rules).

Does your community bear the costs of individuals' personal choice decisions that have bad consequences--absolutely! Our society has decided that expense is the cost of freedom here (and we have more personal freedom in this country than almost anywhere else in the world, something that most people take for granted here because they don't travel much). However, over time our community views on some freedoms are changing (e.g., seat belt use, second hand smoke exposure).

We do have public health laws on the books which could be implemented should there be a serious, rapidly-communicable disease epidemic: people could be quarentined in their homes, in hospitals, or other holding facilities, the use of mass transit could be curtailed, treatments could be mandated . . .

Hollyvk RN, BSN, JD

[lsyorke, RN]

My personal concern is that the manipulation of the immune system leaves it in a state of confusion and disorder, leading to the unavailablity of immune response for common illnesseses, or an incorrect response leading to auto immune disorders and allergies.

This is my concern also. Take Gardisal...barely out of clinical trial(with some neurological side effects showing up there), yet in Texas they are going to mandate it's use, regardless of what pediatricians have said about waiting for more information about risks.

My son is immunized(he's 19) but I would have think long and hard if I had an infant today.

[ann945n, RN]

I have an 11 y/o daughter. I am against this new vaccine for some strains of Human Papilloma Virus. I think I heard that Texas is requiring it now for girls aged 9-13(?). That's makes me angry. My daughter will not be getting that vaccine.

If cervical cancer comes from HPV, then it is quite preventable. I don't like the idea of assuming that everyone will be having unprotected, early sex.

Just to clarify you can get HPV from having protected sex, as most people get it that way. Getting HPV now is just a sign of sexual activity. Ive heard that upwards of 80 percent of females will be infected in their lifetime and every women I have asked has reported to me they too have once tested positive for HPV including me my mom my best friend most women in my RN class and so on.... Luckily none of us got cancer, though my mother came close. HPV vaccine is a wonderful options that all young women should be informed about and have the option to get if they so please. I will be getting it soon myself.

[Jo Dirt]

What I am advocating for is that folks make INFORMED decisions. The whole landscape of preventable diseases has changed with the advent of immunizations in the past 60+ years. We've managed to elimminate smallpox worldwide--that's a HUGE victory given its lethal consequences and one that could not be accomplished without high vaccinations rates.

When folks choose to opt out of being vaccinated they usually do so for personal health/belief reasons; what they generally do not do is evaluate their risk of contracting the disease nor consider the size of the pool of other non-immunized persons they are choosing to join that will constitue a host population for the continuation of that particular disease organism.

Take for example pertussis (whooping cough). Infants don't have full protection against it until they've completed the DPT series at around 6 months of age. While it is a serious disease in infants (can be fatal), it is a milder respiratory infection in teenagers and adult. Worldwide, there are 30-50 million pertussis cases and about 300,000 deaths per year (World Health Organization data). Immunity after immunization can wane, resulting in outbreaks, and booster immunization has recently been introduced.

New parents contemplating opting out of DPT for their infant would need to evaluate the risks of receiving the vaccine versus the risk of the infant becoming infected with this organism; factors to consider include: the fact that pertussis is endemic in the US, that outbreaks of it occur on a regular basis (it's a highly infectious disease), that immunity wanes over time resulting in an increase in the pool of teens and adult who can contract and spread the disease, and that treatment of the infection is largely supportive therapy (the coughing spasms last for wks and cause vomitting of stomach contents, hypoxia, and ugly cyanosis in infants).

So if you live in an isolated area, work at home, shop by mail, and home school your kids, you've reduced the number of potential infectious contacts for your infant with this disease. But if you live in an urban or suburban area, or your children attend a school, or you frequent stores to do your shopping, it's easy for this disease to reach your infant.

And if you've taken offense at my stance that you fully evaluate both the basis and the consequences of your decisions, then I hope that at least your anger has made you think about it a bit more deeply. Many vaccines do not confer life-long immunity, but may result in a milder infection. So I assume motorcycle mama that your nephew is neither deaf nor sterile . . . .

Hollyvk, RN, BSN, JD

Who is angry ?

I agree people should make INFORMED decisions and not simply parrot what scientists hired by pharmaceutical companies and the government that received money from the pharma companies tell us.

But most often parents are not given the choice to make informed decisions, because even though it is supposed to be the law that possible side effects and dangers are mentioned to the family (which are very real) it most never happens. If it is mentioned at all it's usually that the benefits outweigh the risks and that's the end of it. Unfortunately, most people put blind faith in doctors.

And if my nephew is not sterile or blind I doubt it is because he was vaccinated.

Also, smallpox was already declining before the vaccine came into use. Diseases tend to run a natural course.

So, I am informed. Thank you for the genuine concern.

[Angie O'Plasty]

I have an 11 y/o daughter. I am against this new vaccine for some strains of Human Papilloma Virus. I think I heard that Texas is requiring it now for girls aged 9-13(?). That's makes me angry. My daughter will not be getting that vaccine.

If cervical cancer comes from HPV, then it is quite preventable. I don't like the idea of assuming that everyone will be having unprotected, early sex.

I feel the same way about this one. I can see where from a public health standpoint it may help, since there will always be those who continue to have early unprotected sex. However, as you said, HPV is quite preventable without the vaccine. At my last physical, I was offered the HPV vaccine but did not take it--why would I need to take it if I'm going to wait until I'm married to have sex? Totally unnecessary and I'd rather not be the guinea pig for such a new vaccine. Like many of you, I am generally pro-vaccination but am leery of the newer ones until they have been out a while and shown to be safe and effective.

[Angie O'Plasty]

... the fact that some vaccines are derived from ingredients obtain from aborted fetuses.

I didn't realize that--which ones?

[hollyvk, BSN]

I feel the same way about this one. I can see where from a public health standpoint it may help since there will always be those who continue to have early unprotected sex. However, as you said, HPV is quite preventable without the vaccine. At my last physical, I was offered the HPV vaccine but did not take it--why would I need to take it if I'm going to wait until I'm married to have sex? Totally unnecessary and I'd rather not be the guinea pig for such a new vaccine. Like many of you, I am generally pro-vaccination but am leery of the newer ones until they have been out a while and shown to be safe and effective.[/quote']

Angie,

I think it's hugely admirable that you have chosen not to be sexually active until you are married. :) Are you planning on having your future husband tested for all possible STDs and at regular intervals thereafter? (Something I hope Mrs. Ted Haggard will require of her hubby).

Vaccine safety is a very valid issue, and yes, there is reason to question whether the decision made in Texas to vaccinate all pre-teen girls against HPV is motivated by just public health concerns or by profit-driven lobbying by the vaccine manufacturer.

HollyVK RN, BSN, JD

[Angie O'Plasty]

Angie,

I think it's hugely admirable that you have chosen not to be sexually active until you are married. :) Are you planning on having your future husband tested for all possible STDs and at regular intervals thereafter? (Something I hope Mrs. Ted Haggard will require of her hubby).

Vaccine safety is a very valid issue, and yes, there is reason to question whether the decision made in Texas to vaccinate all pre-teen girls against HPV is motivated by just public health concerns or by profit-driven lobbying by the vaccine manufacturer.

HollyVK RN, BSN, JD

Well, hopefully he will also be someone who has chosen to save sex for marriage, and in that case the testing wouldn't be necessary, but if he has ever been sexually active it would certainly be advisable to make sure he didn't pick anything up then.

[GardenDove]

I didn't realize that--which ones?

It sounds like from this that rubella is a biggie.

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2410

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/October2002/VaccinesFromAborted4.htm