I've always been a bit of a skeptic when it comes to medical advice. After all, modern medicine is relatively new and progressing at such a rapid pace that it is still accurately called "medical practice." It's not that I avoid doctors. I find their work fascinating. But I want to understand why standard procedures are standard and make the final decisions about some things myself.
It is impossible to have children these days and not enter the debate about vaccines. If only in the point of making the decision for your own children. There are scary arguments on both sides. And the FDA, AMA, and CDC, all once trusted completely, have not exactly proven that they have the best interests of the American people at heart in recent years. With questions about their motives, their money, and their members come questions about their policies and their recommendations.
As a parent, I read all the articles. Those forwarded by health nut friends, published in parenting mags and on the web sites of the aforementioned agencies, and distributed by the hospital and our doctor. I particularly appreciated the arguments of Dr. William Sears in my favorite parenting book of his, and followed his recommendation to research the history of vaccines. Then I did some math in my head to try and better understand the motivations of the various sources. Having done all this, I sat down for a conversation with our family doctor to find a reasonable solution for our family based on the following points...the arguments that mattered to me.
First, vaccines revolutionized the world of medicine and when given across the board save far more lives than they hurt. Yes, a few children will have deadly reactions to vaccines, but thousands more are saved by them. If you're the one whose child dies, there's no excuse that will satisfy you. But if you're the policy maker of a nation, you must look at the overall numbers and make a recommendation that saves the most lives. The recommendations that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If you have a family history of bad reactions to vaccines, you may rightly consider avoiding them. Otherwise, please consider that the complete eradication of a disease, and therefore the need for future generations to be vaccinated against it, is possible if we can achieve a high enough level of vaccination across the global population in two generations.
Second, not all vaccines need to be given in infancy. The rushed vaccine schedule is recommended by the AMA and CDC because of low follow through rates on well child care visits, especially in poorer regions of the nation. My doctor called it the "vaccinate 'em while you got 'em" policy. If you're the kind of conscientious parent who is doing research about vaccines online, you're probably also the kind that will follow through on your kids well child care visits and selectively delaying some of the vaccines will not harm, and may actually be better for your child. As with many policies, the bar is set to catch the least careful parents, even though a slower schedule would be better for most children.
Finally, the human immune system is strengthened in childhood by overcoming disease. In other words, it's important for children to get sick and to get over it. Vaccination against deadly diseases is warranted. Vaccination against easily overcome infections is not. When I had this conversation with my doctor, the varicella vaccine for chicken pox had just been added to the recommended list and I was concerned that such an easily overcome childhood illness was being avoided. Also, flu vaccines we're beginning to be recommended for children. He was concerned also. His recommendation was that the varicella be held off in the hopes that an actual case of chicken pox could be had in early childhood. If that didn't happen, and it didn't because everyone else was vaccinating for varicella in infancy, then they should get the vaccine in their early teens as the infection was much more serious, and potentially life threatening, in teens and adults.
As for flu vaccines, he was appalled with the AMA's pressure to make them standard for children. He strongly believed that unless an individual had a compromised immune system, flu vaccines should be avoided at least until after the childbearing years. Why? Research into the long term effects of bypassing the bodies natural process of immune system growth on such a massive scale was non existent. Since that system is passed in part from mother to child, he feared the overall weakening of the human ability to overcome disease and eventual vulnerability to a widespread plague. Bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating and adapting to overcome our medical treatments for them, but our bodies, through the marvel of the human immune system, also constantly adapt to overcome them. This happens much faster and far more accurately than the science of vaccination can create and predict artificial protections from new diseases. While we suffer more in the short term, we are building strength in our species to pass on to future generations. While this science of vaccination is a miracle for children whose immune systems have been compromised or who have a particular vulnerability to disease, the recommendation of flu vaccines for otherwise healthy children is destructive to the human species as a whole. Please note that all arguments I've read about individual vaccines have been about individual risks. Perhaps because self-centered arguments garner the most attention, but the risk to our entire species is far more compelling to me than the risk of individual bad reactions. It's also far more supportable by established science than individual anecdotal reports of bad reactions.
Ultimately, my children have been given the vaccines that are most important on a delayed schedule reflecting the value of immunity they received by breast feeding for more than a year and my doctors comfort with my commitment to regular well child care. Even though we've had to change doctors over the years, my ability to articulate this reasoning about vaccines has been acceptable and none of them have argued with or belittled me about this decision. I know this is not the case for parents who come in with articles that take extremist positions, have little scientific support, or take the position that the risks to the few outweigh the benefits to the many. Unless you have a strong reason to believe your child will be one of the few, a doctor must consider the risks of an unvaccinated child to the many. Remember what I said about comprehensive vaccination's ability to completely eradicate a disease.
At home I have focused my efforts on strengthening their bodies against disease rather than avoiding it. (You won't find bleach or many antibacterial cleaners and soaps in my home but hand washing etc. is practiced.) Our household usually goes through two good bouts of cold/flu a year, one in summer and one in the winter. It's miserable, but we come out stronger. I'd rather all get it and get it over with than try hard to avoid it and have one child at a time sick because there's really no avoiding it in the end. When I hear reports about companies requiring their employees to get flu vaccines because of statistics about economic loss due to sick days, I think how short sighted they are in their greed. As if a few billion dollars in the scope of our national economy is worth the gradual weakening of the species.
In the end, this is a decision every parent has to make for themselves. It puts doctors in an uncomfortable position as statistically "vaccinate 'em while you got 'em" is still the best policy for widespread success, while they are often more conservative about vaccines themselves. They face parents who want no vaccines and parents who demand every vaccine as soon as possible. There is an appropriate middle ground with some leeway for individual situations. I hope this is one of many articles you read as you determine the arguments that mean the most to you, and I would encourage you to approach your family doctor from a position of partnership in your families health rather than an adversarial position about the controversial subject of vaccination. You may find that they are very willing to adjust the schedule and delay or eliminate less important vaccinations for parents who are well informed and committed to regular well child care. They will also have the most recent information on outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases in your area so you can make informed decisions either way.
I am interested to hear which arguments most influenced your family's decision either way in the comments.
It is impossible to have children these days and not enter the debate about vaccines. If only in the point of making the decision for your own children. There are scary arguments on both sides. And the FDA, AMA, and CDC, all once trusted completely, have not exactly proven that they have the best interests of the American people at heart in recent years. With questions about their motives, their money, and their members come questions about their policies and their recommendations.
As a parent, I read all the articles. Those forwarded by health nut friends, published in parenting mags and on the web sites of the aforementioned agencies, and distributed by the hospital and our doctor. I particularly appreciated the arguments of Dr. William Sears in my favorite parenting book of his, and followed his recommendation to research the history of vaccines. Then I did some math in my head to try and better understand the motivations of the various sources. Having done all this, I sat down for a conversation with our family doctor to find a reasonable solution for our family based on the following points...the arguments that mattered to me.
First, vaccines revolutionized the world of medicine and when given across the board save far more lives than they hurt. Yes, a few children will have deadly reactions to vaccines, but thousands more are saved by them. If you're the one whose child dies, there's no excuse that will satisfy you. But if you're the policy maker of a nation, you must look at the overall numbers and make a recommendation that saves the most lives. The recommendations that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If you have a family history of bad reactions to vaccines, you may rightly consider avoiding them. Otherwise, please consider that the complete eradication of a disease, and therefore the need for future generations to be vaccinated against it, is possible if we can achieve a high enough level of vaccination across the global population in two generations.
Second, not all vaccines need to be given in infancy. The rushed vaccine schedule is recommended by the AMA and CDC because of low follow through rates on well child care visits, especially in poorer regions of the nation. My doctor called it the "vaccinate 'em while you got 'em" policy. If you're the kind of conscientious parent who is doing research about vaccines online, you're probably also the kind that will follow through on your kids well child care visits and selectively delaying some of the vaccines will not harm, and may actually be better for your child. As with many policies, the bar is set to catch the least careful parents, even though a slower schedule would be better for most children.
Finally, the human immune system is strengthened in childhood by overcoming disease. In other words, it's important for children to get sick and to get over it. Vaccination against deadly diseases is warranted. Vaccination against easily overcome infections is not. When I had this conversation with my doctor, the varicella vaccine for chicken pox had just been added to the recommended list and I was concerned that such an easily overcome childhood illness was being avoided. Also, flu vaccines we're beginning to be recommended for children. He was concerned also. His recommendation was that the varicella be held off in the hopes that an actual case of chicken pox could be had in early childhood. If that didn't happen, and it didn't because everyone else was vaccinating for varicella in infancy, then they should get the vaccine in their early teens as the infection was much more serious, and potentially life threatening, in teens and adults.
As for flu vaccines, he was appalled with the AMA's pressure to make them standard for children. He strongly believed that unless an individual had a compromised immune system, flu vaccines should be avoided at least until after the childbearing years. Why? Research into the long term effects of bypassing the bodies natural process of immune system growth on such a massive scale was non existent. Since that system is passed in part from mother to child, he feared the overall weakening of the human ability to overcome disease and eventual vulnerability to a widespread plague. Bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating and adapting to overcome our medical treatments for them, but our bodies, through the marvel of the human immune system, also constantly adapt to overcome them. This happens much faster and far more accurately than the science of vaccination can create and predict artificial protections from new diseases. While we suffer more in the short term, we are building strength in our species to pass on to future generations. While this science of vaccination is a miracle for children whose immune systems have been compromised or who have a particular vulnerability to disease, the recommendation of flu vaccines for otherwise healthy children is destructive to the human species as a whole. Please note that all arguments I've read about individual vaccines have been about individual risks. Perhaps because self-centered arguments garner the most attention, but the risk to our entire species is far more compelling to me than the risk of individual bad reactions. It's also far more supportable by established science than individual anecdotal reports of bad reactions.
Ultimately, my children have been given the vaccines that are most important on a delayed schedule reflecting the value of immunity they received by breast feeding for more than a year and my doctors comfort with my commitment to regular well child care. Even though we've had to change doctors over the years, my ability to articulate this reasoning about vaccines has been acceptable and none of them have argued with or belittled me about this decision. I know this is not the case for parents who come in with articles that take extremist positions, have little scientific support, or take the position that the risks to the few outweigh the benefits to the many. Unless you have a strong reason to believe your child will be one of the few, a doctor must consider the risks of an unvaccinated child to the many. Remember what I said about comprehensive vaccination's ability to completely eradicate a disease.
At home I have focused my efforts on strengthening their bodies against disease rather than avoiding it. (You won't find bleach or many antibacterial cleaners and soaps in my home but hand washing etc. is practiced.) Our household usually goes through two good bouts of cold/flu a year, one in summer and one in the winter. It's miserable, but we come out stronger. I'd rather all get it and get it over with than try hard to avoid it and have one child at a time sick because there's really no avoiding it in the end. When I hear reports about companies requiring their employees to get flu vaccines because of statistics about economic loss due to sick days, I think how short sighted they are in their greed. As if a few billion dollars in the scope of our national economy is worth the gradual weakening of the species.
In the end, this is a decision every parent has to make for themselves. It puts doctors in an uncomfortable position as statistically "vaccinate 'em while you got 'em" is still the best policy for widespread success, while they are often more conservative about vaccines themselves. They face parents who want no vaccines and parents who demand every vaccine as soon as possible. There is an appropriate middle ground with some leeway for individual situations. I hope this is one of many articles you read as you determine the arguments that mean the most to you, and I would encourage you to approach your family doctor from a position of partnership in your families health rather than an adversarial position about the controversial subject of vaccination. You may find that they are very willing to adjust the schedule and delay or eliminate less important vaccinations for parents who are well informed and committed to regular well child care. They will also have the most recent information on outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases in your area so you can make informed decisions either way.
I am interested to hear which arguments most influenced your family's decision either way in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Talk back. I'm a mom. I can handle it.