Guest guest Posted April 27, 1999 Report Share Posted April 27, 1999 We get the shots (dead polio) because my dad is on chemotherapy and he couldn't be around the girls for months (anyone with a compromised immune system can contract polio if exposed to a child given the oral vaccine) if we got the live vaccine - the live virus gives the COMMUNITY better protection because with the shot, they can still be carriers of polio, they just won't get it themselves - if that makes sense. Anyway, everyone would be fine if everyone got the shot - which is what they seem to be going to more these days. You have a choice of which one your child gets so don't let your doctor try to push you to get the oral (mine did, I said sorry, can't because of my dad anyway!) Felicia Hannah 12/10/97 Tarah 3/31/99 Visit our webpage! http://www.geocities.com/~hshill Do you ICQ?? I do! My number is 5447987. To download ICQ for free, go to http://www.mirabilis.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 I have met this argument many times and am still not convinced by it. If I choose not to have my child vaccinated, who am I putting at risk? Other children who have not been vaccinated. Why should I have my child vaccinated (and put him/her at risk of any side effects of the vaccination) to protect children whose parents have chosen not to have them vaccinated? I understand that there are some children whose immune systems are compromised for one reason or another, but the chances of my child coming into contact with one of them whilst infected with one of these diseases are extremely remote. At the end of the day, every parent has to act in the best interests of their own child, not everyone else's. Just for the record, all of my children have been vaccinated, but at a time and in a combination of my choosing, not when and how the HPs dictated. Alison I have met 2 or 3 children who have caught measles in the past 5 years or so, one was in intensive care for a week and still is a little slow, measles is not an innocent disease. The case for vaccinating against mumps and rubella is an attempt to erradicate the diseases, mumps can cause sterility if caught by older boys and we all know the effects of rubella on the foetus. IMO sometimes it is a good idea to do things that might not directly benefit yourself or your child, but are for the greater good of the population. Curran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2000 Report Share Posted August 8, 2000 >I hope you lot aren't trying to make me feel insecure. I took Hannah for >her 12 month check today and consented to her having the MMR and chickenpox >vaccine. > >Joyce last timei saw the HV (who?) she said " see you at 13 monhs for her MMR " i said that i thought i would leave it till nearer 18 mths -2 as i did with G (diff. practice, *very* sympathetic HV and GP who helped me look into the whole bowel disease thing as ther is family history......anyway) " Oh that should be OK " she said, " but there have been alot of measles cases around lately so maybe you will want to rethink " now that was cheeky of her cos she knows that I will have the MMR done mainly cos of the measles -both by DBs were *very* ill with it. However I want it done to my timetable, not the HAs! Angi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2000 Report Share Posted August 12, 2000 I think you are being un peu trop cynical, Clare - I have never ever felt that money came before health care. And it may be that it's BECAUSE the NHS didn't have adequate financial management and planning systems in place 20 years ago that it's having to be so aggressive about funds now! Anneliese (part-time) SAHM to Baby Tim (18/9/99), member, Alton, Bordon and district branch Re: vaccinations On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:27:43 +0100, " heather hadley " wrote: >Interestingly, an article in the Mail on Sunday about a young mum and her >baby that had been struck off their Doctors list over the MMR issue, quoted >that GP's get some £2685.00 per year if they can ensure 90% for the babies >in the practice are fully vaccinated and only £895 if they achieve 70%. Not >that I am suggesting they are motivated by money you understand......... Call me a cynic, but I see my GP in terms of him running a business and wanting to earn as much as he can from what he does (as do we all), and I am sure that finances usually come into the equation when he makes decisions about the treatment of his patients. I am also sure that this wasn't the case 10-20 years ago... -- Clare Lusher. SAHM to Ruairí, born 24/10/1999 www.yum.org/clare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2000 Report Share Posted August 12, 2000 Call me a cynic, but I see my GP in terms of him running a business and wanting to earn as much as he can from what he does (as do we all), and I am sure that finances usually come into the equation when he makes decisions about the treatment of his patients. I am also sure that this wasn't the case 10-20 years ago... No Clare, you are no cynic. You are absolutely right. Money is part of the decision making process for almost all decisions - not the most important but certainly important - and rightly so IMO. Where I beg to differ is with your impression that it wasn't like this 10-20 years ago. I started work with a GP Practice 12 years ago and money has always played a part. It is more evident now, that's all. Sue S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.