Parents claim religion to avoid vaccines for kids

Evo

I find this appalling.

How is it that people don't understand the benefits of vacinations and how miniscule the percent of serious adverse reactions are.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...0330/-1/NEWS07

waht

There persists a sort of panic among parents that when vaccinating their kids will make them ill, or will affect them mentally somehow. Although there have been cases like these, but it's rare. I bet the same kids that became seriously ill because of vaccination would have other problems develop if they weren't vaccinated in the first place.

arildno

They have shown themselves detrimental to their childrens' welfare, and ought to be deemed incompetent at necessary parenting skills.

Moridin

Appalling, indeed. I think it is a combination of the lame conspiracy theories and the fact that there have been no big outbreak close to home for these people.

daveb

Yes, it is appalling, but unfortunately her right. Refusal of medical treatment is a completely viable and constitutionally protected right. Courts have consistently held that parents can refuse medical treatment of their children (I know for religious grounds, but I don't know about non-religious grounds).

GoldShadow

Parents should not be allowed to make such decisions; there needs to be a law preventing it.

I'm not saying they should be disallowed from making decisions about their children. However, when they refuse to vaccinate their children, they are effectively making a decision for everybody around the child. A single unvaccinated child can spread an illness or infection to others.

One idiotic parent should not be allowed to put others in jeopardy. Making decisions that affect only their child is their right; making decisions that affect others should be outlawed.

Moonbear

Vaccinations are a matter of public health, and opting out should not be something taken so lightly.

As for how people can be so ignorant about this matter, I think it's a two-fold explanation, as Moridin described too. First, and foremost, they are susceptible/gullible to the proliferation of misinformation and flat-out conspiracy theory type stuff posted all over the internet (it seems they find it easier to learn the misinformation than to unlearn it in the face of more credible facts). And second, the huge success of vaccinations are their own downfall..these people have never seen a polio outbreak, a case of tetanus toxicity, or known someone rendered sterile by mumps.

Perhaps a religious exemption from vaccination should require a letter from a member of your clergy? Someone whose religion does not prohibit it might find themselves hard-pressed to obtain such a letter, and someone whose religion does prohibit such treatments should have clergy more than willing to provide such a letter. People who are trying to cheat the system by claiming a religious exemption when it's really just ignorance put everyone in danger, including the religious who depend upon "herd immunity" to avoid such harmful diseases, and should not be allowed to so easily circumvent these public health requirements.

mgb_phys

Not true - this is one of those classic prisoner's dilema problems.
It is in your child's best interest to be the ONLY non-vacinated one, the vacine contains a risk (however small) and if everyone else is vacinated there is no chance of an epidemic.
However if more than a critical number of children aren't vacinated then an epidemic is possible and it is in your child's interest to be vacinated. Then the cycle repeats.

GoldShadow

What about those with weaker immune systems (such as the elderly, and those with autoimmune diseases, or infants/neonates) or those who have not yet been vaccinated against certain diseases (infants/neonates)?

Evo

Actually that's not quite true.

Moonbear

Those aren't the same situations, Evo. mgb_phys' comment referred to a person being the ONLY unvaccinated person. In that case, they benefit from everyone else's immunity around them...there's nobody to catch the disease from if everyone else is immunized. In the situations you're describing, there were groups of unvaccinated people living in close proximity to one another. They no longer had the benefit of everyone else being vaccinated around them, because they provided their own small reservoir in the population for the diseases to take hold and be transmitted (which is also the risk being created by larger numbers of parents withholding vaccinations from their children).

The greater risk is that once an outbreak like that occurs among the unvaccinated, it then gives that disease organism an opportunity to multiply rapidly, which leaves open opportunity for more mutations to render the organism sufficiently changed to then infect even the vaccinated. That's why someone choosing not to vaccinate their child isn't just assuming the risk for their own child, but for everyone around them.

Evo

I guess I should have said that one child being the only unprotected one is a highly unlikely scenario. What about those that were vaccinated, but aren't completely protected? For diptheria and pertussis, that would be any child under the age of 12-15. Actually Spawn was not fully protected from pertussis since she had a violent reaction to the first vaccination, her doctor decided not to give her the subsequent vaccinations for pertussis (I believe it was pertussis that is the one that usually causes the most sensitivity) here in the US, they give children a series of 5 DPT vaccinations until they are 12-15 years old and are not fully immunized until they receive all 5 vaccinations. Some parents do not bother to have ALL of the vaccinations done, and the vaccine loses effectiveness and it is recommended that a booster be given after the 5 vaccinations as well. So where there may not be an epidemic, you are putting your child at risk and they are not better off unvaccinated.

Even though she ran a high fever and had vomiting from the vaccine, it would have been better than what she went through with whooping cough. She contracted whooping cough when she was 3 and it was terrible. I had to spend most of one night closed up in the bathroom with the shower at it's hottest to create steam so she could breath (per the instructions from the ER).

mgb_phys

My post was meant slightly sarcasticly - most new parents seem to think their child is the only one in the world.
It also seems to be a transatlantic thing - in the UK they obsess about seat belts but avoid vacination, while in the USA they are all for vacines but against seat belts.

jim mcnamara

Except in Santa Fe, NM (I live near there). They are against everything there. You name it. A neighbor got sued because the "EMF" from his computer farm was giving another neighbor headaches. Ms. Headache also had problems with the Taos hum.

A lot of the boys in my son's scout troop - years ago - were not vaccinated at all. One guy didn't want his son near mine - because my kid had vaccine germs. Or something. He wasn't coherent about the issue. Or any other issue, either.

I think the term mqb is looking for is 'freedom of insanity'.

GoldShadow

It's common knowledge that a live pathogenic virus at full strength is far less dangerous than a dead or weakened one.

NoTime

There is an element of truth to this.
Some of the vaccines are live attenuated versions of the original.
In some cases you can catch a vaccination.
Polio vaccine is one that comes to mind.
Having known people that got Polio, I would have to say this is a good thing.

mgb_phys

Smallpox is bad for this - a couple of ,otherwise healthy, partners of people who received vaccines in recent security scares have died.