![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ruminations on vaccinations
Mar. 1st, 2006 08:00 pmI mentioned in passing in another entry that I didn't understand why the Hep B vaccine was an infant vaccine in the States. In Canada (or at least, in Ontario) it's administered by public health nurses, at school, in grade seven, and parents get the opportunity to opt out if they wish. I taught grade seven for three years, and only knew of two kids who opted out in that time.
I think I've figured out why the States administers it so young, and the reason is similar to the reasoning for the new anti-cervical cancer vaccine. Basically, the religious right is not happy with the idea that kids get vaccinated against something which, theoretically, they can avoid through "moral" lifestyle choices. They're afraid that, if these vaccines are administered at an age when the child is sexually aware, the kids will use them as an excuse for promiscuity. By administering them to babies, they take that argument at least partially out of the equation; the kids don't ever need to know that they've been vaccinated, so the issue doesn't have to come into play at all, as it would if they waited longer.
Now, the Hep B vaccine is one of the few that I would not administer to a baby of my own. I will not opt out of it for my children when they get it in grade seven, but neither would I consider giving it to them as babies. There's no point, since the chances of contracting the virus before age 12 are remote at best. If my jurisdiction required it for school attendance, I'd at least make sure they gave the mercury-free version, and I'd probably wait as long as I could before giving it.
I do not feel this way about other vaccines. Elizabeth has had all her mandatory vaccines, and I'm going to look into getting her the ear infection/meningitis one, which I would have had to pay for when she was little (and I couldn't afford it while I was on mat leave.) It'll be free for Claire, fortunately. I believe that mass vaccinations of children are one of the great triumphs of modern medicine and are responsible for saving the lives of countless children in the last fifty years. I vaccinate because I want my child to have real protection, not the sometimes illusory protection offered by a society that has mostly had its shots. The only good reason to not vaccinate would be fear of allergies, and that would only be valid for certain vaccines (the Hep B vaccine is one of them) and if one or both parents suffered from extreme allergies themselves. Otherwise, the risks are slim entirely worth it.
I get annoyed at parents who choose not to vaccinate for other reasons, some of which include:
1) These diseases are so rare, there's no chance my child will catch it - possibly true, but every unvaccinated child increases the risk of the disease taking hold in a population. You're benefitting from the fact that the rest of us vaccinated our children.
2) I don't want my child to develop allergies - potentially a good reason, but also potentially an uninformed cop-out.
3) I don't want my child vaccinated against an STD because it might encourage immoral behaviour - this is just plain mean-spirited. It means you're prepared to hold your child's life to ransom against their behaviour, and you're prepared to accept that they might die or get really, really sick, due to (potentially) one moment of indiscretion during moments of raging hormones. It means you have absolutely no trust in the judgement of the people you raised to adulthood, since you think they're going to make this decision based on one factor (potentially contracting a disease.) There's also the problem that they could do nothing wrong themselves, but still contract the diseases in question from other people who were not so pure - for example, a virgin marries a non-virgin and only discovers after the wedding that he was not as pure as she'd been led to believe. Her only sin is naiveté, but because you didn't let her get her vaccine, she's going to die for it. You're prepared to put your grandchildren at risk of contracting these diseases due to their parents' indiscretions/behaviour. And lastly, you're prepared to potentially allow your child to harbour this virus in her/his body, spreading it to others unbeknownst to any of them, if they rebel completely but don't have the knowledge to protect themselves and others. You'll permit your child to become a public health risk to other young people - all on the basis that, if they weren't engaging in "immoral behaviour", they'd have nothing to worry about.
No, I have no sympathy whatsoever for this argument.
I think I've figured out why the States administers it so young, and the reason is similar to the reasoning for the new anti-cervical cancer vaccine. Basically, the religious right is not happy with the idea that kids get vaccinated against something which, theoretically, they can avoid through "moral" lifestyle choices. They're afraid that, if these vaccines are administered at an age when the child is sexually aware, the kids will use them as an excuse for promiscuity. By administering them to babies, they take that argument at least partially out of the equation; the kids don't ever need to know that they've been vaccinated, so the issue doesn't have to come into play at all, as it would if they waited longer.
Now, the Hep B vaccine is one of the few that I would not administer to a baby of my own. I will not opt out of it for my children when they get it in grade seven, but neither would I consider giving it to them as babies. There's no point, since the chances of contracting the virus before age 12 are remote at best. If my jurisdiction required it for school attendance, I'd at least make sure they gave the mercury-free version, and I'd probably wait as long as I could before giving it.
I do not feel this way about other vaccines. Elizabeth has had all her mandatory vaccines, and I'm going to look into getting her the ear infection/meningitis one, which I would have had to pay for when she was little (and I couldn't afford it while I was on mat leave.) It'll be free for Claire, fortunately. I believe that mass vaccinations of children are one of the great triumphs of modern medicine and are responsible for saving the lives of countless children in the last fifty years. I vaccinate because I want my child to have real protection, not the sometimes illusory protection offered by a society that has mostly had its shots. The only good reason to not vaccinate would be fear of allergies, and that would only be valid for certain vaccines (the Hep B vaccine is one of them) and if one or both parents suffered from extreme allergies themselves. Otherwise, the risks are slim entirely worth it.
I get annoyed at parents who choose not to vaccinate for other reasons, some of which include:
1) These diseases are so rare, there's no chance my child will catch it - possibly true, but every unvaccinated child increases the risk of the disease taking hold in a population. You're benefitting from the fact that the rest of us vaccinated our children.
2) I don't want my child to develop allergies - potentially a good reason, but also potentially an uninformed cop-out.
3) I don't want my child vaccinated against an STD because it might encourage immoral behaviour - this is just plain mean-spirited. It means you're prepared to hold your child's life to ransom against their behaviour, and you're prepared to accept that they might die or get really, really sick, due to (potentially) one moment of indiscretion during moments of raging hormones. It means you have absolutely no trust in the judgement of the people you raised to adulthood, since you think they're going to make this decision based on one factor (potentially contracting a disease.) There's also the problem that they could do nothing wrong themselves, but still contract the diseases in question from other people who were not so pure - for example, a virgin marries a non-virgin and only discovers after the wedding that he was not as pure as she'd been led to believe. Her only sin is naiveté, but because you didn't let her get her vaccine, she's going to die for it. You're prepared to put your grandchildren at risk of contracting these diseases due to their parents' indiscretions/behaviour. And lastly, you're prepared to potentially allow your child to harbour this virus in her/his body, spreading it to others unbeknownst to any of them, if they rebel completely but don't have the knowledge to protect themselves and others. You'll permit your child to become a public health risk to other young people - all on the basis that, if they weren't engaging in "immoral behaviour", they'd have nothing to worry about.
No, I have no sympathy whatsoever for this argument.