Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children for son

southernbubby

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 7:36 pm

My husband had a little brother, who developed leukemia at age 8 and passed away at age 12. We were already married when he passed away. As he was in his final stages, he contracted mumps and I was not allowed to go near him while pregnant, even though I had had mumps because the fear then was that it could still affect a fetus.

Before he passed away, he wanted to attend school while he still could but his immune system was lousy. The public school that he attended was not going to do anything to accommodate him such as giving him easier assignments, not making a big deal over missed homework, or sending home work when he did not feel up to going. I persuaded my MIL to send him to a private school where they bent over backwards to cater to his needs. He had a wonderful time there while he was able to go and the school did whatever possible to keep the situation safe for him.

My point to this sad story is that it is less relevant that parents are choosing not to vaccinate, which is something I disagree with, and more relevant that the parents of a sick child should find the safest environment for him to be in. Not all sicknesses are preventable. Strep goes around and right now a stomach virus, possibly shigella, is making the rounds and none of these things are great for sick kids.

Barbara

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 7:36 pm

Let's double back to peanut butter.

If your kid is so allergic to peanuts that my kid's granola bar, manufactured in a facility that may have processed nuts, is dangerous to her, don't you think that you should just keep your child home? My kid has the right to eat. And let's face it, if that granola bar can hurt her, isn't she just as much at risk from people walking by her bus stop? Or maybe someone touched her parents' car. Surely she can't ever go out to shul, or the store. Her parents should just keep her at home. Not my responsibility.

No different. No less callous.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 7:39 pm

Barbara wrote:

And he thinks its silly that you won't vaccinate, which we all agree places his kid at additional risk.

But your position is that you have the right to do that, and won't take any action whatsoever to protect another child.

You won't agree to your child going to a different school to protect him.

You won't agree to your child being in a different classroom to protect him.

You won't agree to expose your child to the disease to protect him.

You and your child have all the rights. This child has none.

And you wonder why I think that anti-vaxers are selfish.

My job is to protect my child. His job is to protect his. I wont harm my child to help someone elses against a theoretical risk. His child will STILL be at risk even if mine is vaccinated so there is no use blaming me. And my childs health records are private just like yours.

Barbara

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 7:43 pm

amother wrote:

Wonderful.

And I provided three options for you that don't involve you vaccinating.

But your response is, my kid has rights, and if this other kid dies because of it, tough luck. I'm not willing to compromise at all.

I hope you never have to face a situation like this poor family. And if you do, I hope that others aren't as selfish and uncaring as you are.

sky

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 7:52 pm

Barbara wrote:

It is selfish.
One thing I noticed from the recent Disney World outbreak is that a lot of articles are interviewing people who believed in not vaxing their kids and then when there was an outbreak they made the decision to vaccinate. (IIRC one story the mother was pregnant and concerned if she caught it from her son or her unborn child caught it, what about until then?).

I would love to hear from those that don't vax. That if there was a new baby in their home, and something like measles was going around their child's school would they still feel comfortable with their decision or would they start second guessing themselves? If the answer is even a thought of yes or worry then it is selfish.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 8:27 pm

sky wrote:

I am not vaccinated. A few years ago when mumps was going around, I caught it. I had a baby then. Was I worried? Not more than if I'd be having strep or the flu. Just hoped she wouldn't catch it. P.S. Although we co-slept throughout my illness, my baby did not get the mumps. But, I kept my baby home from the babysitter for two weeks after I got it, to make sure she wasn't going to be passing it on to other kids before showing symptoms.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 8:29 pm

amother wrote:

Why did you cosleep when you were infected? That doesn't sound very smart.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 8:35 pm

I'm afraid to open my mouth on this thread, but if anyone here has problems with understanding my posts, please don't read into them what you think I am saying, and skip on by.

BUT
I kind of hear where amother is coming from.
The risk of an immunocompromised child coming down with a non-VPD (vaccine preventable disease) from any child (regardless of vaccination status) is greater than the risk of an immunocompromised child coming down with a VPD from a non-vaccinated child.
It's impossible to spread the measles if one wasn't exposed, regardless of vaccination status.

The question is when something specific is going around, then what?

Well, if it is a non-VPD, the answer is that it probably is in the best interests of the immuno-suppressed child to stay home.
If it's a VPD, it gets more complicated because all of a sudden there is reason to assign danger to those not vaccinated.
However, since many adults no longer have immunity to things they were vaccinated for, it's a little presumptuous to just point the finger at non-vaccinated children. And not everyone can be vaccinated, and that is known too. The father wants more people to vaccinate in the hopes of increasing "herd immunity" but it still may not help his son.
Meaning a global policy may change things over time, but his son is going to be at risk still, and it's up to him to weigh the risks. Having the personal belief exemptions removed is not going to make his son any less at risk. It just isn't going to work.

But then it turns into sky's question about little babies at home with measles going around. Well, it used to be little babies were protected from their mothers' antibodies for the measles. Because of the vaccine, almost no one giving birth these days had the measles and are not conferring the same level of antibodies to their children as they were with natural immunity, making more babies at risk.

So here we see 2 different outcomes from the same policy of vaccinating everyone -- some people are more protected, some people are less.

It's way too grey of an area for us to easily determine what is the most ethical. Because measles was never eradicated DESPITE a very high vaccination rate (the rate stated to be high enough for "herd immunity") and there have always been cases in the US. I counted something like 1500 in the past decade, which is significantly down, but is always a risk either way.

/rambling thoughts

southernbubby

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 8:46 pm

Adults can get updated vaccines. I had tdap and polio vaccines given a year ago because I was traveling to EY and I will soon be covered for the shingles vaccine.

You mothers of small babies should insist that the grandparents are up on their shots both for themselves and for the grandchildren.

There is really no reason for vaccines to lapse in adulthood and teachers and other school personnel need to be up on their shots as well.

southernbubby

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 8:53 pm

The age for shingles vaccines is currently 50, although my insurance doesn't cover till 60. This may have to be re-thought. My son had shingles 6 weeks after he was married. One theory as to why young people are increasingly coming down with this painful and sometimes damaging illness is that before the chicken pox vaccine was routinely given, people were always exposed to chicken-pox which boosted their immunity to shingles. Now that the chicken pox virus is almost eradicated by vaccines, there is no natural immune boost so shingles is no longer a disease of old age when the natural immunity starts to lessen.

southernbubby

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 9:05 pm

Dovi'smom wrote:

Whoops. Tis a strange thing then, that I don't know too many unvaccinated people, and two of those (out of just several) have food allergies/eczema in quite a remarkable way.

Unfortunately some medically uneducated celebrities have gotten people to jump on that bandwagon. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I thought that it was a disease of modern times. Then I did research and found out that the disease was first found in medical literature 1000 years ago. Somehow people think that everyone back in the day was perfectly healthy and Western medicine and big pharma is responsible for all the sickness.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 9:07 pm

Think1st wrote:

Have you ever seen an un-vaccinted child allergic to nuts ? or any other food allergy. what is the percentage of cancer patients amongst the vaccinated VS un-vaxed ?

I couldn't not respond to this. This morning a little girl in my neighborhood who had cancer passed away. We are all devastated. I am not in any way correlating the two, but since you asked, I am answering. Her entire extended family does not vax, and they are very health-minded, into herbs, vitamins, etc.
Anon because everyone who knows me knows how upset I am about this.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 9:08 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Just because they may disagree with you doesn't make them uneducated.

amother

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 9:32 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I said medically uneducated. These celebrities have no medical training. It is not me that they disagree with, it is the medical establishment (I agree with the medical establishment).

There are lots of medical professionals who disagree with the medical establishment too. Because theres lots of money that make the current recommendations recommendations. For instance, the fact that the CDC is STILL recommending the flu vaccine this year even though it was shown to only be 12% effective, has risks, and the flu season is almost over!

southernbubby

Wed, Jan 28 2015, 9:39 pm

amother wrote:

so far I have not seen one doctor who does not recommend the flu shot and I have been to several doctors lately. They must still be convinced that the flu shot is 50% effective. Very few docs are anti vaccine.