|
|
Subject:
Choosing Vaccinations for Newborns
Category: Health > Children Asked by: notmn1-ga List Price: $5.00 |
Posted:
25 Mar 2006 05:14 PST
Expires: 24 Apr 2006 06:14 PDT Question ID: 711762 |
First, I realize that google researchers do not provide legal advice, I am just hoping that you can point me to some resources that help provide the answers I am looking for. I have been trying to choose a pediatrician for my soon to be born child. One issue I have are vaccinations which have mercury containing compounds such as Thimerosal or other preservatives like formaldehyde. I would like to be able to choose which vaccination that has the least preservatives in it when there are multiple manufacturers on the market to choose from. But every Pediatrician I talk to refuses... I must use what they order. They say they are all just as safe, and it saves them money to buy in bulk, and will not use any others. The sad thing is, when I ask them which manufacturer they use for a specific vaccine, such as Hep B, they say "I can't rememember, you'll have to ask "such and such" who does the ordering." I was promised from one pediatrician's office that they would mail me a list of the manufacturer for each vaccine that they use, and it never came. Can I force them to use another manufacturer from what they order? Seems to me I should have the right to choose, as long as I pay for what my insurance does not cover. I live in Maryland and have BCBS POS if that makes any difference. Any references to rights to choose medications for situations like this would be appreciated. A specific link(s) to a reliable source(s) answering my question gets a $5 bonus if posted before April 9. | |
| |
|
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
Subject:
Re: Choosing Vaccinations for Newborns
From: siggy-ga on 30 Mar 2006 23:04 PST |
First, about the Hepatitis B vaccine. There seem to be basically two risk factors for this -- (1) sexually active (as in some, many, or many-many partners) OR (2) I.V. drug user or both . . . If you believe your infant will be sexually active, or injecting drugs, then of course you want the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, some people believe they have quite a few years before they *really* have to make that decision. Yes, of course I'm being sarcastic, but it's so ludicrous that it only deserves sarcasm -- vaccinating infants for something they presumably won't have to worry about until they are (at least) teenagers ! Even if you choose to postpone for a few years, there is more to be wary of, when you are at the hospital. Some hospitals just go ahead and vaccinate, against parents' request, and then say, "Oh, sorry." |
Subject:
Re: Choosing Vaccinations for Newborns
From: notmn1-ga on 06 Apr 2006 13:08 PDT |
siggy-ga: Yeah, I believe the Hep B vaccine for infants is silly, too. I am Hep B negative, and have no reason to give, except Maryland law demands it, unless you get a religouse expemption. IF you can find a flexible pediatrician, which I have no luck in finding, you can get them to administer the vaccine after going to the hospital, and get around the hospital forcing it on you. Same for the erythromycin eye drops, and the vitamin K. As far as the studies for erythromycin, for std free women, they show no evidence in reduction of eye infections. As far as the vitamin K, why can't they do a 2 second prothrombin test before risking anaphylactic shock (though rare) on an infant that may not need it? UGh. Legally mandated outdated or useless prophylactics. |
Subject:
Re: Choosing Vaccinations for Newborns
From: linezolid-ga on 28 May 2006 08:21 PDT |
You can, of course, refuse vaccinations. What I find fascinating is the particular justification for refusing them being "it's silly, I don't see the point". Mandated or recommended vaccinations are to protect not only individuals but also the group. If your child does not get an HBV vaccine (hepatitis B) now, I goddamn guarantee you s/he will not suddenly think of getting one when s/he becomes sexually active, and you won't think of it either. Then when your child develops liver cancer or cirrhosis at the age of 45, you'll be more than a little upset. Obviously, this is an extreme example of what can happen, and it will probably not happen to YOU. But it will happen to a certain number of people who refuse this vaccination (or have it refused for them). One of the saddest stories I've heard was that of a child getting polio in India DURING the recent vaccination campaign (this was a recent NY Times article). The mother had refused vaccination because she thought it might be harmful in itself. She said "I didn't know. I didn't understand what could happen." Now the child is paralyzed. To the commentor who talked about "useless" prophylaxis, frankly, you're talking out of your ass. You can also easily look up recent measles epidemics in this country in areas where there is a high rate of vaccine refusal. The sad thing is that vaccines are not 100% effective, so that even vaccinated children are getting measles in these areas from repeated contact with the virus. The concept here is called "herd immunity": when there is a certain level of resistance in the group, the chance of epidemic (i.e. uncontrolled spread) is limited, even though sporadic isolated cases continue to occur. The issue of preservatives is an interesting one. Certainly people on both sides of the thimerosal debate are convinced both of their correctness and of the delusional thinking of the other side. I can't enter into this one with any certainty, myself, except to say that neither side has substantially proven its case. It is fairly clear, though, that any adverse effect from thimerosal is nowhere near as large (in terms of number of people effected), as is the number of people benefitted from the use of vaccines. Finally, I would add that one of the main difficulties in accepting the usefulness of vaccines is that they are so effective. Those of us who grew up in the vaccine era are unfamiliar with the ravages of unchecked polio and measles. Ask your grandparents (if they are still around), or anyone in their 70's or above about the polio epidemic. Read up on the influenza epidemic of the early 1900's (the Spanish 'Flu). Look at what's happening with polio in the Indian Subcontinent right now. Inform yourself about the facts, not with speculation about minute quantities of "harmful preservatives". And if you really want to protect your child from harmful substances, try and feed it food grown without huge quantities of pesticides and antibiotics, get rid of your car, don't smoke, throw the TV out the window. Being concerned about preservatives in vaccines and ignoring the far more numerous and severe problems of the modern world is missing the forest for the trees. Cheers |
Subject:
Re: Choosing Vaccinations for Newborns
From: kittiecat620-ga on 05 Jun 2006 05:32 PDT |
While I do not doubt your research on the vaccinations for your child, I have to question where you live, as Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine... |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |