Megan Hazen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
meganursula) wrote2009-10-25 10:29 pm
meganursula) wrote2009-10-25 10:29 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I think this article is well worth reading.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/
For the record, i think there is room for people to evaluate their vaccination approach. Something i like about this article is that is discusses many of the details in the debate which i think are too often poorly understood or just plain ignored by people.
There are a number of things i would quote from it, but perhaps the most salient for today is “The choice not to get a vaccine is not a choice to take no risk,” he says. “It’s just a choice to take a different risk, and we need to be better about saying, ‘Here’s what that different risk looks like.’
While people are wondering about flu vaccines, and novel H1N1 vaccines, i think we should keep this in mind. I do fall prey to the tendency to want to avoid the vaccines - both of them - because it is an unknown, and because i am currently healthy under the status quo. Why take a risky action when i can avoid it? The answer, of course, is that inaction is also a decision that carries some risk*, and all the current evidence suggests that for me, and my family, at this time, inaction is far more dangerous than the actual action. But, while my head can accept that, my gut still gives me trouble.
My out, of course, is that H1N1, the vaccine that i, particularly, should have this fall, but which is also more frightening because i haven't had it before, isn't available. So i have to hope that no one with exposed symptoms of swine flu rides the bus with my pregnant self, but i'm saved from a decision so far.
* complete aside - this, of course, applies to other areas in my life. Like my job.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/
For the record, i think there is room for people to evaluate their vaccination approach. Something i like about this article is that is discusses many of the details in the debate which i think are too often poorly understood or just plain ignored by people.
There are a number of things i would quote from it, but perhaps the most salient for today is “The choice not to get a vaccine is not a choice to take no risk,” he says. “It’s just a choice to take a different risk, and we need to be better about saying, ‘Here’s what that different risk looks like.’
While people are wondering about flu vaccines, and novel H1N1 vaccines, i think we should keep this in mind. I do fall prey to the tendency to want to avoid the vaccines - both of them - because it is an unknown, and because i am currently healthy under the status quo. Why take a risky action when i can avoid it? The answer, of course, is that inaction is also a decision that carries some risk*, and all the current evidence suggests that for me, and my family, at this time, inaction is far more dangerous than the actual action. But, while my head can accept that, my gut still gives me trouble.
My out, of course, is that H1N1, the vaccine that i, particularly, should have this fall, but which is also more frightening because i haven't had it before, isn't available. So i have to hope that no one with exposed symptoms of swine flu rides the bus with my pregnant self, but i'm saved from a decision so far.
* complete aside - this, of course, applies to other areas in my life. Like my job.
no subject
Just like so many other aspects of parenting, vax or no vax is an assumption of risk. As the parent, you choose the risks you're willing to accountability for.
The one piece of advice I do give my clients when they ask is that they MUST do their research and own their decision, and NOT give it over to someone else (doctor or relative), because once you give a shot (or circumcise, or quit breastfeeding, or whatever), you cannot take it back. You MUST be certain of your decision, and willing to accept the consequences. Once you are aware and at peace with your decision, you'll be in a much better position to deal with whatever comes along.
Being uneducated and choosing to do nothing is very different from analyzing your choices and conscientiously choosing a particular path.
There's a LOT of fear-based decisions going on in parenting right now. The biggest reaction I got in KC when Julia started going to college at age 13 wasn't "Wow, that's cool" but rather "You're letting her take the BUS?"
I think there's far more fear involved in the mass marketing of vaccines than there is in the decision to not use them. I suspect that if there was a study done showing the long-term affects of extended breastfeeding and not vaxxing on auto-immune-related disorders (diabetes? Crohn's? asthma? eczema? allergies? autism?), the decision would be a lot clearer for most parents. But there isn't such a study, and until then, parents will just have to piecemeal their decision together based on a patchwork of studies that look at a very tiny window of affects.
no subject
I have not read the whole magazine, i just came across this article on line. So i can't comment on design decisions about the cover or whatnot. I will say that i am interested in statistics and historical information, which i find easier to come across through medical literature and my doctor's office than in on-line anti-vaccine advocacy groups.
I agree that there is a lot of fear being peddles towards parents - on almost every level, and with every decision. Most of it is unwarranted (as fear - it may be warranted as further information to consider while making a decision). I don't suppose that either side of most arguments is immune to using scare tactics or heart-wrenching (warming) anecdotes to sway people to their side.
All of which leaves me in my original position - i think this article has some interesting discussion of aspects to the vaccine question that i think most people ignore or lack exposure to. I have thought, for a long time, that one reason people are so fearful towards vaccines is that we no longer have a social memory of the types of diseases that these vaccines are protecting us from. I appreciate that this article pointed out that, while vaccines may carry risks, so do those illnesses. Choosing not to vaccinate is not risk free.
There is also a well documented human tendency to stick with the status quo - even when overwhelming evidence suggests that a change in course would be more beneficial. (People who are educated about retirement funds, and convinced that it would be beneficial to them all around to increase their contributions, still tend to stick with the current level because it does not require action.) I think this also weighs into something like whether to get the flu vaccine - we are okay now, we have been okay in past years, perhaps often without the vaccine. Why change? I am far from immune to following the path of least resistance.
In other words, i don't particularly care to have an argument about whether or not to choose a particular vaccine. I suspect i will continue to vaccinate both myself and my children unless conditions change, and you will continue to avoid the procedure. However, i think we can both benefit from remembering the above issues while we are making our decisions.
I also wish that i thought that a greater portion of the population actually had the education and the access to information to do the thorough analysis that makes you and i so comfortable with our decisions.