Hypothetical "What would you do?"

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-09-2009
Hypothetical "What would you do?"
163
Wed, 09-09-2009 - 5:53pm

This question is for those parents that have chosen not to vaccinate based on information they have read on the interwebz.

What would you do if your child caught and died or was permanently disabled from a disease that they were supposed to be vaccinated against early in life?

Who would you blame? Would you try to sue someone?

I'm not trying to flame anyone for their choices, but I've always wondered this "what if". Just as I'm free to choose to vax my child, everyone else is free to not to.

Pages

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-12-2009 - 4:00pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Sat, 09-12-2009 - 6:32pm

I have four, two vaxxed and two unvaxxed. All but one have had WC... the unvaccinated one has not. We've had rota go through our house, with everyone being affected. My oldest got CP, (no shot available). The vaxxed kids also got flu shots, and got the flu. They have also had many viral and bacterial infections. I see lots of symptoms in general in the vaxxed kids, they just aren't as robust as the others.

My unvaxxed kids have been home mostly. My son has been at home for 3 years, and my youngest for 18 months so this could very well explain them being less sick. They just started at a day care in July and haven't been sick yet, but I might begin to see more challenges.

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-12-2009 - 10:03pm

Just wanted to add, out of 5 children, only the youngest is unvaxed (and uncircd, but all were breastfed) he is now 7 and in first grade.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-09-2009
Sun, 09-13-2009 - 2:42am
Well, I've been specifically naming Group B Strep, so that's what I was referring to. I'm not really familiar with the other.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-09-2009
Sun, 09-13-2009 - 4:07am
There definitely was some confusion. That's why it's best not to just stick to using acronyms because they're easily confused.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Sun, 09-13-2009 - 2:41pm

<>

I *wish* my vaxxed kids would spike a fever, they seem to just slowly come down with symptoms, never really mounting a good response. It takes them several, and I mean several, days to return to somewhat normal. My unvaxxed kids burn up, and are then perfectly fine. I realize that it's difficult to resist the urge to suppress the fever, but I really think that most folks (doctors included) do not realize the importance of this reaction within the host. I would love to see an observational study of deaths from VPDs and the use of antipyretics. Garbage as some feel these kinds of studies may be, properly and unbiasedly carried out, they can be pretty enlightening.

Reminds me of the tearjerking story that circulated about the child with CP that was taken to the ER and ended up dying. Secondary infections, cardiac arrest, organ failure, necrotizing fasciitis etc... They just gloss over the fact that child was served up some steriods and antipyretics and act as though it didn't contribute to the child's immune response being inadequate. Just love how we tinker around with the body's ability, and attempt, to fight infection, then turn around and blame a disease when we fail (or choose the wrong methods).

Bleh. I'm crabby, signing off for a while. Good seeing you Christine.

-Jamie

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Sun, 09-13-2009 - 5:06pm

I know we've discussed use to tylenol, etc. around here before .. but reading your post made me think about it again. I'd be curious to see some literature on why we shouldn't use tylenol / steroids .. I understand what you are saying -- but I'd like to read about it.

At work -- if a patient's temp goes above 38 degrees C (which is about 100 degrees F, I think) then we have to call the doctor, give tylenol, they usually draw blood cultures and also start an antibiotic, pending the result of the blood cultures. I realize that to many of the ladies here, this is the worst possible thing to do! But then why does EVERY doctor do it, and it's the protocol for the hospital. I recall a very specific case on the unit I work on where a patient accused nursing of not giving her tylenol for fevers and the DPH actually came to our unit to investigate and review her medical record.

I think that if I were the patient, I would take the Tylenol for a fever greater than 101 .. but I wouldn't want the IV antibiotics and the blood cultures. 9 times outta 10 it's not a blood infection .. and people are already there b/c they are sick .. sooooo I would expect a fever. I think a lot of it has to do with defensive practice. Doctors are forced to do something, because if they do nothing, patients will be displeased. AND if something were to come of it .. then the patient / family would accuse the doctor of having neglected the patient. It's a vicious cycle.




Photobucket
















Photobucket


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-09-2009
Mon, 09-14-2009 - 2:13am
A fever is probably a good thing, but only to a point. After a certain temperature is reached, it becomes dangerous for a child, so "burning up" without treating isn't always a good thing. But I'm sure you didn't just let them fever without checking on them so I'm sure they were fine.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 09-14-2009 - 7:55am
Well, I'm not exactly for sure what your point is, so I'll just probably say "OK" and be done with it.
Photobucket Photobucket

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 09-14-2009 - 8:00am
Yes, Guillain Barre.

Rands

Pages