Thanks everyone for your contributions
I know we all have different views on this, and I hope no one gets upset by this thread if their views differ from others?
But it is something that is important in all parents minds so on balance I think we should not shy away from it and have this open and honest discussion about the issue. So I am glad that it has been brought up but do hope no one feels upset by it? as the main purpose of this forum is to support women with PNI and I would not want important but side issues like this to inhibit anyone from getting the support offered here
I am wondering how you are feeling especially Liz as you did say it is a 'subject that I have taken a lot of flack for'
I hope you do not see this discussion as flack? as myself and others may have a different opinion or in my case agree with many of the points you raise but I came to a different conclusion and decided to give my child the jabs anyway.
But I am glad this is being discussed honestly and I do agree the jabs may contain stuff that I would not want my child to have if I could get the jabs without and that a lot of the reason the jabs are developed and offered is money - for those who develop them and for those that administer them and costs in terms of saving money for the NHS in the long run So in the past I have always very worried about this subject coming up here and especially my commenting on the MMR issue as I do realize my views maybe are 'old fashioned' and shaped by being around when theses illnesses were very common.But I also do believe it is personal choice and many of my friends choose not to let their children have them - even one who is the same age as me, and we in the main amicably begged to differ
I am surprised however Sarah you had both mumps and German measles ( German measles is in fact rubella so that may explain to you what you had and why you were not very ill with it) see:
www.kidshealth.org/parent/infections/skin/german_measles.htmlGerman measles was in my childhood the 'old' common name for rubella!! And therefor German Measles is not a milder version of measles but a completely different childhood illness.
This was what rubella was called but that has mostly been forgotten now but I expect like me your mum still calls it that.
So German measles is rubella ! And most are not very ill with that.
I am assuming you did not have the MMR only the measles and not separate jabs for all of them?
As a few years ago you might have just had the separate measles vax and not the other two.
I can not remember when they were combined ( maybe in the 1970s? late 1970s I think?) but it was not that long ago - and I wish they had never been because it is measles that is the one that was serious and combining them has led to controversy.
I think it was very wrong that this was done.
And in fact the rational I remember of combining the three immunizations was a bit 'big brother' and done mostly for cost reasons.
I believe it was combined to save costs but also because most parents at the time were very scared, and rightly so, of their children catching measles so very few would not get their children immunized against what potentially was/is a killer decease.
But very few were bothered about immunization against mumps and rubella as the usual practice was like with chicken pox now, was for parents to try to expose their children to theses so they would get them before puberty when it was not a problem.
But this does not always work and the consequences of mumps and rubella in adulthood used to cost the NHS money in terms of care of those who got it in adulthood i.e 'congenital rubella syndrome' in babies which leads to the necessity of lifelong care for a child with this which cost a lot to the health care system annually when it was common and complications for men with mumps and the occasional brain damage that can result in children with mumps that also leads to lifelong care.
So the government/NHS in its wisdom did the big brother thing at the time and combined them so that parents who wanted their children immunized against the very serious disease measles also in the process immunized against mumps and rubella too!
This also reduced costs in terms of having to administer three separate immunizations.
That,
in my humble and totally unqualified opinion, was a serious mistake as it has led to 'non- compliance ' in having the MMR jab so therefore less children are now getting immunized against the potentially serious Measles
Both mumps and rubella are actually fairly mild illnesses to have as long as you have them in early childhood
I remember rubella ( German measles) well as it made me so itchy
but it did not make me that ill. Both my brother and I had it at the same time and drove my mum mad with applying calamine cream to try to stop the Itch!!!
Mumps made me and most of us feel more ill but both are only a problem after puberty - mumps for boys and rubella for your baby if you get it when you are pregnant.
It is measles that was the serious one and the one I worry about most as most of my generation can remember kids who died of it.
So I suppose that being of a generation that had friends that did colours your whole perspective on the issue .
Re The jab for the cervical cancer virus that has just come in.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6223000.stmIt will be rolled out September next year to all girls 12 to 13 to catch them before they are sexually active. They are not going to give it to boys, due to cost, even though they carry it and this would cut the cancer even more .
They will do a 'catch up' program for all girls under 18 later. But by then my daughter will be 19-20 so will miss it.
You can get it privately even now, but it is less effective if you are already sexually active and you have already been exposed to the human papillomavirus (HPV)
This will save the NHS loads of money in the long term as it will mean that the smear test can eventually be phased out and the cost of treating cervical cancer will be much reduced.
So again it is mostly about cost - cost to the Government/NHS - and is not being done just for altruistic reasons like our children's future health.
But I do welcome it even though I know it is mostly being introduced due to cost reasons .
This may be so, as most jabs are introduced to save money -and as Liz points out doctors get paid for doing them and labs get paid for developing them ..................
............... but if such an immunization prevents my child from suffering cancer or whatever I have to say I do not care personally why it has been introduced or if anyone benefits financially from it.
I suppose this is my attitude with all the jabs.
I am aware that they are offered often by governments in the main to save their health systems money - and big money is made form theses jabs - but if it means that my child does not suffer from them - then I do not care why they are introduced, I am just glad they have been.
but this is just my opinion
So I hope everyone is alright with this discussion.
We have a choice on here - discuss things that we may not have the same opinion on or avoid it.
I think on balance, as long as we respect each others views then on the whole we should discuss it
Veritee