A CDC-sponsored study included 1,047 children children who have received their government mandated vaccinations underwent 42 neurological and psychological exam to test the theory that thimerosol, the mercury containing preservative in many vaccines, caused neurological or psychological problems in 7-10 year olds. Studies concluded that thimerosol is basically harmless. (Note that thimerosol and autism links are being evaluated in a separate ongoing study, and while thimerosol has been removed from vaccines, the rates of autism have not declined).
In the past several years, linking adverse events to vaccines has been all over the news and on the minds of many new parents. But most of these theories on adverse events to vaccines are unfounded.
The Institute for Health Freedom, National Vaccine Information Center, and Vaccine Information & Choice Network are among the many advocacy groups who promote education on vaccines, and ensuring the informed consent of parents on vaccines prior to their children receiving the vaccines. I have reviewed these sites and think they are a terrific resource for parents to find information on these vaccines, yet I can't figure out how a parent can decline vaccination. This is a subject where personal autonomy and the right to choice battles against the ethical obligation to protect your child from numerous deadly diseases. Have these parents gone too far in exerting their freedoms? I can't help but think this is an abuse of one's rights as Americans.
While I strongly believe in the one's right to autonomy and a parent's responsibilty to make the best possible decisions regarding their child's health, I can't understand why some parents opt out of having their child receive the readily available and CDC-recommended vaccines. In the School District of Philadelphia, there are 8 required vaccines that students must receive prior to beginning school, exemptions being granted for religious or medical reasons. It is safe to assume that the HPV vaccine will soon be mandated, and the meningitis vaccine is being highly debated as a mandatory vaccine for students entering college. I have 2 nieces in the public school system who did not receive any immunizations; it is not difficult to waive the vaccines and still be admitted into public schools. As a disclaimer, I must state that I do not have children. Right now I am speaking as an adult who received all the mandatory vaccines, and would have would have received Gardasil had it been available 12 years ago when I started college.
Are these parents going too far in making the decision to turn down vaccines for diseases that many children are still dying from in developing countries? I can only hope these parents are well-informed before they put their child at risk. The Gates Foundation focuses on providing these available vaccines in developing countries, and cite this World Health Organization fact on their web site: "The World Health Organization estimates that more than 2 million people die each year from diseases for which immunization is routinely recommended, including measles, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. Half of them are children under the age of 5."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that it seems a bit overprotective to decline the required vaccines. While we need to educate ourselves, I think we also need to trust the authorities - these vaccines are required for a reason, and if these vaccines are really did cause damage, the rate of those afflicted by the adverse effects would be greatly increased as everyone has received them.
My sister-in-law recently gave birth to twins and almost declined some of the mandatory screenings and vaccines. Again, I do think that we need to educate ourselves, but I also think that declining a screening a vaccine is a sign of being uneducated and being afraid of something you don't understand.
However, given our country is founded on freedom, I do think it would be unconstitutional to eliminate the option to waive.
Yes, but consider the role of government in the matter. Why do we employ the FDA or the police officers on the street? It is because we trust them to make those kind of decisions for the greater good of mankind. While I am rabid about choice, in situations like infectious disease, wherein a population can be afflicted easily, it only makes sense to comply. It is not incurring a "labelling" or any such thing; rather, the vaccines are designed to be innocuous to uninfected individuals and protect those who are exposed to the pathogen. Governments of all cultures have an obligation to require vaccination, not to stomp on personal rights, but to protect that person and his fellow man.
Post a Comment