I know I am entering dangerous waters just by mentioning this topic. However my intention is not to rant on about my personal opinion, it is simply to pose a question:
“If a person chooses not to vaccinate their child, and that child is then infected with a disease which would have been prevented or mitigated by the vaccine – does that parent allow the child to be treated by a doctor using modern biomedical treatments/drugs?”
The reason I ask, is because to me, this would seem a little hypocritical. There are specific requirements to get a drug approved – I don’t personally know every aspect of the process and I am not claiming to be an expert, but it is not a quick or easy process, and there are a wealth of evidence-based research, studies and trials conducted before it is offered to the public. More information can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm.
Obviously there are reasons behind people’s choice not to vaccinate – a study of more than 11,000 parents conducted in 2009 showed that approximately 40% of parents (involved in the study) delayed or refused vaccines for their children. The main reasons for this were that they either did not believe that vaccines were beneficial to the health of their children, or they believed the vaccine was harmful to their child. The study can be viewed here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113438/.
I don’t personally want to get into the argument of whether vaccines contain harmful ingredients, or whether they do or do not have links to autism, or any to other condition or disease. The issue I have is this: drugs (as opposed to vaccines) can also contain harmful ingredients; so, when a child is experiencing ill health and is in a life threatening position due to a disease with a known vaccine, does a person who has refused their child the “protection” from this exact illness then allow life saving drugs to be administered to their child? Surely this is hypocritical? I would love to know (honestly), whether people who decide against vaccines because they believe they are harmful to their children, conduct extensive research before allowing other drugs to be administered to their children during times of illness.
Vaccines don’t necessarily prevent a person from catching a disease, they teach our body to be able to defend itself against it should we be exposed to the disease during our lifetime – so there are many arguments to be had about the effectiveness of the vaccine and/or the potential severity of the illness had the child had in fact been vaccinated. My post is not really about that side of things – it is simply a moral question.
If you refuse to vaccinate your child, doesn’t that mean you believe your child should be denied all medical treatment…? Or is it a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too…?
As a footnote – I would like to add that I do realise that people may argue that “other drugs” have not been linked to autism and so it is not a fair argument. However, just because they haven’t yet, doesn’t mean the won’t be in the future. Further, and more importantly, the only strong evidence supporting the autism link (by Dr Andrew Wakefield) has been discredited (he was also charged with a number of crimes committed against children during his research) – not by people “saying” it wasn’t true – but by scientists trying to repeat his study (for those not in the know – this is one of the main measures used in science – an experiment must be repeatable).