Advertisement
The Edutopia Poll
by Sara Ring
To vaccinate, or not to vaccinate? That is increasingly the question for American parents, some of whom believe mandatory childhood vaccinations may harm their kids. All but two states allow parents to opt out based on religious grounds, leading some parents to lie about why they're not vaccinating their children. But vaccine advocates argue that fears about the adverse effects of vaccinations -- particularly their link to autism -- are scientifically invalid. They also point out that parents who don't vaccinate their children put other kids at risk. Unvaccinated kids can still contract and spread illnesses to vaccinated but vulnerable children or to those too young to have received vaccinations yet. Do parents need a reason not to immunize their children? Tell us what you think!
To get the shots, or not
Submitted by Cynthia (not verified) on July 11, 2008 - 16:21.
I am married to a wonderful man who contracted polio when he was 15, the year prior to the vaccine coming out for everyone. When I think what his life would have been like if he had always had mobility I am saddened by the parents who jump quickly onto the bandwagon to avoid having their children vaccinated. Maybe the shots over a longer period of time would give the body longer to adjust. I know that autism is hard to deal with, I teach kids with it, but so is polio, and wouldn't you feel terrible if someone got polio from your child because you didn't immunize them, or worse yet, if your child got it. It can be deadly, and post polio is not much easier to deal with as you age.
Just think about it carefully, and consider all sides of the issue.
Vaccinations to protect the common good
Submitted by Marc Bilodeau (not verified) on July 10, 2008 - 18:02.
Yes, there are sometimes some potentially harmful side effects to some vaccines. But there are also great benefits, not just to the vaccinated person but also to everyone else. If all others were vaccinated, then any one person could safely remain unvaccinated since all others would be immune and couldn't pass on a contagious disease. So everyone has, in a sense, an incentive to free ride on everyone else: let others take the risk of a vaccination and get the benefit anayway. Those who refuse vaccination for their children are teaching them that free riding is ok, that it's ok to place their own self-interest above the common good. Of course, if too many people free ride, then social solidarity breaks down, and in this case deadly diseases such as polio and smallpox could return.
Vaccination for all children?
Submitted by Linda Hyde (not verified) on July 10, 2008 - 17:53.
Vaccination is better than the diseases I had as a child: chicken pox, resulting in shingles forever; measles; and German measles. I think anyone with a legitimate religious/moral reason should be exempt unless anyone else can absolutely prove they are endangering their child.
Medically, perhaps some people are better off building up immunity natural. Questions re autism and vaccination have not been addressed sufficiently.
Should states require immunization?
Submitted by Amanda TX (not verified) on July 10, 2008 - 13:33.
I believe immunizations are important and contribute to a healthier society, however that does NOT mean they should be required. Ultimately parents need to have the final say for their children. As a special ed teacher to many autistic children I have listened to the autism-shots debate for years. I do not believe the shots are CAUSING autism, but I am concerned that we are overwhelming immature sensory and immune systems and CONTRIBUTING to symptoms. As a mother to a medically challenging toddler I have opted to immunize my son by getting one shot every few weeks or month to allow his tiny system to adjust to each new vaccine. The first few rounds of combination shots were simply too much for his tiny body and we ended up in the ER for high fevers and huge red welts at the injection site- no parent wants that for their child, and no governement has the compassion and the first hand knowledge of a child to make a decision that is truely in the best interest for EACH individual child.
Should All Students Be Immunized?
Submitted by Marianne Kuzminskiene (not verified) on July 10, 2008 - 10:00.
Being a mother of a child who as a baby had her first immunization and became highly allergic and her legs began to swell immediately, the fear that I could loose my child from this was alot to deal with, however as she got older what I had to go through with schooling and government officials questioning me regarding not having these vaccines. I had medical records, etc, but still faced powers to be that bullied me saying is this true or are you "one of those parents"!
Now all girls are to be given a vaccine for certain so called sexually transmitted organisms even if they are not sexually active, on Oprah a doctor said do not give this to your daughters. You decide, not enough research yet. Then months later stories of many young girls becoming sick from such a vaccine. Is the government saying all parents can't control their daughters so let give them this shot, what will be next? I think parents need to take a more active roll in the day to day life of our children and be more interested and informed not the government becoming the parent for our children in health or in life.
Mandatory medical treatment
Submitted by sarah (not verified) on July 9, 2008 - 19:18.
Mandatory medical treatment that involves literally billions of dollars in profits to pharmaceutical companies makes me anxious. Polio and tetanus are vaccine success stories--and the scientists who worked on those vaccines were associated with universities, not for profits. (Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, von Behring at the University of Bonn)
The situation for recent vaccines is different; the company bringing us Gardasil (Merck) is the very same company that inflicted Vioxx on millions of Americans. Do we trust that this time they have not hidden any unfavorable research findings? With every vaccine comes some risks--seizure, Guillian-Barre syndrome, or anaphylaxis are all rare reactions, but they do happen to real children. This is the risk we take when we vaccinate, that our child won't be one of those few. Children today get 36 vaccines by the age of two, a three fold increase since 1980. Why should vaccinations against non-fatal (chicken pox) or not easily transmitted (Hepatitis B) illnesses be mandatory? It now looks like those immunized against chicken pox will need periodic boosters throughout their lives as the vaccine wears off and contracting chicken pox in adulthood can be quite serious. Getting chicken pox as a young child confers life-long immunity. Hepatitis B is transmitted primarily through sexual contact and needle sharing. Children of B+ mothers should be vaccinated at birth--but all babies are supposed to be vaccinated prior to leaving the hospital. I choose to vaccinate my children after becoming educated about the risks and benefits. However, I strongly protest the idea that the state can decide what is in my child's best medical interest better than I can.
Parents' choice
Submitted by Lisa (not verified) on July 9, 2008 - 17:51.
I think parents should choose whether to immunize their children. I am a very concerned about the amount of autism that we see in our schools. I believe I am somewhat accurate on stating the autism statistics 1:500 in the past and now 1:150 I have read that some believe the high ratio is due to vaccines. I personally know a family whose daughter was absolutely healthy until her immunizations at the age of two and from that minute on she was very sick and has severe autism. Until we know the reasons why we have so many more autistic children in our world now, I think it should be the parents choice. I am very concerned because I have a new grandbaby. I want concrete evidence that immunizations are safe, 100% guaranteed!
Should states require all parents to immunize their children?
Submitted by Brian (not verified) on July 9, 2008 - 17:09.
Unless we have a complete understanding on what immunization does to a young, developing immune system and body, we shouldn't require mandatory immunization of our children.
Our immune systems have evolved over lifetimes. In the last century we've disrupted the body's natural evolvement in lieu of these new vaccines, which are not natural in any sense of the form.
Immunization is more of a convenience of not having to take time off work due to a sick child.
Become 100% informed before injecting an unnatural substance. That means research in addition to asking your doctor.
Should states require all parents to immunize their children?
Submitted by Martin (not verified) on July 9, 2008 - 16:33.
This should be left entirely to the parents to decide whether their children should be jabbed or not.
There is enough evidence from Europe to show that government organized plans tend to cause a lot of problems. You only have to look at what has gone on in Britain with their 3 jabs in one program for measles, mumps and rubella.
There is a growing body of evidence that this combined jab is actually worse for the children than 3 separate jabs but the government wants it to be made law that all children must have the 3 jab combo, even if the parents are prepared to pay to have the 3 jabs as separate jabs.
Get the State Medical Boards involved and parents will have lost yet another freedom to choose. If you want to continue to sign such freedoms over to the governement you go ahead and do so. I believe the ones who truly care will not.
Immunization
Submitted by John Cohen (not verified) on July 9, 2008 - 16:28.
In this instance, it is unfair and wrong to blame "illegals" for these diseases. The recent outbreaks of rubella (Ontario) and measles (Arizona)were both imported by citizens who had refused to immunize their children. Just as many countries require immunizations for a visa, the US might consider not allowing its residents to return from abroad without proof of immunization.
Post new comment