Printable View
Without wanting to get into the whole "to immunise or not to immunise" debate...
DP and I would prefer to avoid giving DD immunisations that contain some of the HORRID materials that most contain and so are looking for alternatives.
I hear there naturooathic alternatives?
Does anyone know of any? Or has not immunised their children? Looking for advice and info please!
Charlotte did not have Vit K either
TIA :)
Yes you can homeopathically vaccinate, there are kits you can buy. You should be able to google it. We've stopped vaccinating too - too many stories of those who are vaccinated getting the things they are vaccinated for, it's just nuts.
We did choose to vaccinate but see a homeopath afterwards for 'treatment' to reverse any possible side effects. Just wanted to point this out too for you in case you were interested.
HTH.
Its not just the side effects which lead people to not want to vaccinate.
10 Top Reasons Why Parents Choose Not To Vaccinate
I know :) and I am not encouraging her to. Just wanted to mention it.
all homeopathic immunisations arebased on isaac goldens shedule. it covers everything that 'm,ain stream' vaccinations cover
the kit cost some where between $80 and $120
and children can still have reactions to these just not as severe but you can get remidies for those symptoms to.
HTH
We dont immunise and have never had any problems at all. I did look at homeopathic alternatives but for me, i just simply didnt feel that it was needed. All my kids were breastfed bubs and toddlers, with a fussy mummy making sure they ate well. Its never been an issue in schools ever and really the kids are so darn healthy!!
Goodluck!
Jo
i was wondering that....what abt schools think of it....
cause dont kids have to fully immunised to attend school? or am i wrong lol
Unless you have a legitimate reason - knowing how bad so many vaccines are i think is legit enough!!
Schools are not allowed to discriminate based on your desire for you children not to be injected with drugs that are not independently researched and tested. It is your absolute right that they be enrolled even though they are not imm, and don't let anyone tell you differently!
Another thing- there is a $200 imm allowance that u receive from the govt when your child turns 2 and has had all their needles. However, you can send in a conscientious objection form if you choose NOT to immunise and you still get the $200! You need to get the form, bring it to your GP who must inform you of the pros and cons of imm, get them to sign that they have seen you and send it in. The gp doesn't have to agree to your decision- they generally don't anyway!
As a conscientious objector, who has not incurred the costs of vaccinations, why would you apply for the allowance to pay the costs of vaccination? Sounds dodgy to me. If you don't agree with the practise, don't cash in just when it suits you.
Ladies, immunisations is ALWAYS a touchy subject, so can I please ask you all to think very carefully before you post? In fact, it may be wise for you to review your posts to ensure that what you have written is tactful?
Needless to say, I will keep an eye on this thread.
Thanks all.......I am sure you appreciate where I am coming from!
I've always wondered that actually, why there's an immunisation payment when it's free...:p
Guess it's to encourage people to immunise, because they don't realise it's available to everyone?
ANYWAY! :D I haven't looked too much into alternatives yet Alexis, but definitely made my decision not to immunise with the intention to breastfeed to at least 12 months (Riv weaned just before then cos I was pregnant). I think that gives them a great head start in terms of immunity.
It also helped that we weren't in any high risk groups in regards to things like HepB.
For us, it's also a decision that's ongoing, we haven't said NEVER immunise, it's just always, 'not now' or 'not yet'. Who knows, perhaps once Riv is walking with bare feet outside we'll consider tetanus. We didn't consider it necessary at birth, with him often having a cold anyway, for his immune system to have to cope with something else that we didn't feel he needed at that stage.
It's not a decision we made once and then that's it, we often review it, because life changes and if I ever consider that immunisation is a risk worth taking, then we'll take it. But that's not been the case thus far. :)
Anyway, all the best with your decision, it can be confusing to find balanced information (as opposed to either propaganda or scare tactics!) and I'm very interested to watch what you come up with in regards to alternatives!
The immunisation payment is not linked to costs associated with immunising your child; it is intended to encourage parents to immunise their children. However, as pointed out, the government cannot discriminate against parents who choose not to immunise, so you can conscientiously object, and if so, still claim the payment, attend schools, etc.
It is a difficult subject. I like the payment system, though, because one of the requirements for being a conscientous objector is that you have seen a medical practitioner and discussed the pros and cons of immunisation. I think that its important that every parent make an informed decision about immunisation. Because there are quite strong cases both for and against, despite government health authorities pushing the "for" side exclusively, I think it's a decision that should be made with some education. I have no objection against parents who choose to immunise their child if they have looked into the decision and are happy with it - in fact, my job obviously requires me to recommend it - but I am aghast at the thought of parents blithely allowing their children to be injected with a controlled drug, without fully investigating the evidence.
And in response to the opening poster's question: I have heard of homeopathic vaccination. I do not believe in it, as there is no evidence - not even anecdotal evidence - to suggest it has any effect. There is, however, a sizeable body of anecdotal (non-scientific) evidence to suggest a specific pattern of reactions which occur linked to the use of immunisations, in particular the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccination, and this body of evidence has grown significantly enough that health researchers have acknowledged it as a potential problem, even though they have not as yet been able to isolate the problem or specifically link it to immunisation. Therefore, we have chosen not to immunise our children, and we believe that their good standards of hygeiene, "extended" breastfeeding, good nutrition, and careful supervision of their activities and playmates, is the best defence against the most dangerous of the vaccine-preventable diseases, and that their own immune systems will defend them from the less dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases, with the outcome being a lasting and natural immunity. We also intend to commence a modified schedule of immunusations before they start school - when their immune systems are sufficiently matured that they only need one dose of many of the immunisations to accord them immunity, rather than a series of three.
And incidentally, I am honestly quite disgusted to see that the rotavirus vaccine has already been added to the immunisation scheduel for babies under six months. Rotavirus is a ridiculously easy disease to keep away from babies, unless they are in childcare and not under your direct supervision. I honestly believe that it should be offered to women who have no choice but to put their babies into childcare, but is a horrendous waste of money, and a health risk, to the rest of the population.
I am not a fan of most of the recent additions to the schedule, but can you pick and choose which ones they do have? If you have an issue with the Rotavirus one (which I do and would like Alister not to have it again it made him quite ill) can you choose not to have that one but have the others? also does it matter if they have already had one dose and not the others? I haven't ever had to get my older children done for meningococcal or phneumococcal as it wasn't on the schedule for them and they are now, can I refuse to have them done as my kids just aren't in the situations (daycare) where these illnesses are commonly contracted?
Yes, you should be asked your consent for each individual immunisation, and you are free to pick and choose between them. That is what we have essentially done, or will do when we commence immunisaions for our girls. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to post my proposed "immunisation schedule"...:D
I don't see why not Sherie. Rotovaq is given as a seperate, oral, dose, so I don't see why you couldn't choose not to have that, but still have the others.
Yes please Michael, I would be very interested.
I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on commencing immunisation according to the schedule, and then abandoning it. Or picking and choosing which immunisations from a certain point, after the schedule has already begun. In saying this, I don't want to be condemned for considering this, I just want information as to whether or not it's a good idea to interrupt the schedule.
Janie, I'm certainly starting to lean that way too. Alister is due for his next lot of vaccs and I am seriously considering not getting them done.
Michael, is there any harm in stopping vacc'ing if they have already had some? I would like to continue with the Hep B one though. and I would love a copy of your schedule too please :)
I'd be very interested in your schedule Michael
Michael, I know it can very greatly, but do you have any info about how long the Hep B antibodies hang around after immunising children? It's one of the ones I'm most sceptical about, and I need some info on it. I will do some research into it, but would interested in your thoughts.
Okay. I'm at work, and have an admission coming in, but otherwise it's quiet, so I'll do some research and when I get a sec, post my own personal recommended schedule.
As far as Hep B is concerned, I believe they are currently recommending an adulthood booster, so it only lasts until late teens. But I'll try and find something definitive for you.
This is from the US Center for Disease Control:
So, in the US, they only track for 15 years, but believe that there is sufficient immunity left at the 15 year mark not to recommend a booster.:
Antibody Response to Vaccination
Licensed formulations for both vaccines produce high (>95%) rates of protective antibody (anti-HBs >10 mIU/mL) when the complete series is administered in different schedules to infants, juveniles, and adults aged <40 years (5). Among healthy adults, 30%--50% develop a protective antibody response after the first vaccine dose, 75% after the second dose, and >95% after the third dose (5--9). Increasing the interval between the first and second dose of vaccine has little effect on immunogenicity or final antibody titer, although data are limited regarding intervals >2 months among adults (5,8). The third dose confers the maximum rate of seroprotection; it primarily acts as a booster and confers optimal long-term protection through the induction of maximum immune memory (5,9). Both licensed vaccines administered on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule produce a >95% final seroprotection rate among adolescents and healthy young adults, and studies indicate that vaccination of adolescents and adults on a 0-, 2-, and 4-month, and adolescents on a 0-,12-, and 24-month schedule, achieved final seroprotection rates similar to the 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule (8--10). In addition, a 2-dose vaccination series using Recombivax HB? at the adult dosage has been demonstrated among adolescents aged 11--15 years to produce protective antibody responses equivalent to that of the 3-dose series, although the long-term protection afforded from this schedule is not known (8,11).
The duration of vaccine-induced antibody and protection from hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection has been evaluated among vaccinated infants, juveniles, and adults (5,12--14). Studies indicate that although loss of detectable anti-HBs has ranged from 13% to 60% by 9--15 years after vaccination, immune memory provides protection from HBV infection, and protection remains intact for >15 years, the longest period for which follow-up data are available (5,12--14). Because of the long duration of protection afforded by the 3-dose vaccine series, booster doses of vaccine are not needed among vaccinated immunocompetent juveniles or adults.
As I don't have kids yet I haven't really looked in the reasons for not vaccinating.
However as someone with an (almost) PhD in microbiology, the knowledge I have of the diseases is pretty much enough to make me choose to vaccinate, especially considering the risk of re-emergence of diseases previously vaccinated for.
That said, when the time arises, I will take the time to research the "don't vaccinate" side of things and make my decision then.
Thanks so much for that Michael.
I don't have a problem with people not immunising themselves or their children, if that is their choice. I often do not agree with the medical field or the government, and if i was not a proponent of their service, i would also not claim the 'benefit' of that service.:
There are costs involved in getting immunised in terms of transport and time. Immunising one child can also assist in preventing disease in children that are not yet of age to be immunised.
I see the government payment as assisting the parents who have gone through the immunisation process, in terms of their time and also in assisting in reducing the spread of the diseases by limiting the number of children who may be infected (due to being immunised).
Those who choose not to immunise do not incur the time/transport costs of each immunisation.
Homeopathic vaccination is not recognised by the government or science(as far as i am aware) as viable immunisation. I understand that this may require additional funds, and this is part of the choice that people make.
That is my point of view, anyway.
Kate
I thought the immunisation payment was incentive to immunise, but obviously thats not the case, however when it first came out I'm fairly certain that was the motive.
It was the motive to encourage immunisation, but it was also the other part of the Maternity Allowance (now the Baby Bonus). So regardless of whether you chose to immunise or not, you should still be entitled to it as your other part of the Maternity Allowance.
DISCLAIMER: This information is based on my own personal research, as a parent. It is not health advice, nor is it a recommendation. You should seek advice from a trusted health professional before making any decisions about immunisation for yourself or your child. This information is in no way endorsed by my employer, NSW Health, and I am posting as a parent and a member of the public, and not in my capacity as a nurse.
Okay, Schmickers' Immunisation Schedule, Version 1.0
First of all, a lot of this is being cobbled together from notes - both paper notes, and mental ones. It is all based on either our own research, or advice from a trusted paediatrician, but the standard disclaimer applies - this is my own personal opinion, not as a nurse, but as a parent, and while you are free to do with it as you want, I am not responsible for the consequences, should there be any apart from having happy, healthy children. So please, don't sue me.
First, for reference, the current Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule:
Source: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/in...f/Content/nips, accessed 20th January 2008:
Birth
- Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote a]
2 months
- Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote b]
- Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis) (DTPa)
- Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnotes c & d]
- Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
- Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV)
- Rotavirus
Top of page
4 months
- Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote b]
- Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
- Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnotes c & d]
- Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
- Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV)
- Rotavirus
Top of page
6 months
- Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote b]
- Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
- Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnote c]
- Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis) (IPV)
- Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV) [See footnote e]
- Rotavirus [See footnote j]
Top of page
12 months
- Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote b]
- Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [Seefootnote d]
- Measles, mumps and German measles (rubella) (MMR)
- Meningococcal C (MenCCV)
Top of page
12-24 months
- Hepatitis A (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in high risk areas) [See footnote f]
Top of page
18 months
- Chickenpox (varicella) (VZV)
Top of page
18-24 months
- Pneumococcal polysaccharide (23vPPV) (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in high risk areas) [See footnote g]
- Hepatitis A (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in high risk areas)
Top of page
4 years
- Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis) (DTPa)
- Measles, mumps and German measles (rubella) (MMR)
- Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis) (IPV)
Top of page
10-13 years
- Hepatitis B
- Chickenpox (varicella) (VZV) [See footnote h]
Top of page
12-18 years (School based program)
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) [See footnote k]
Top of page
12-26 years (Community based program)
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) [See footnote l]
Top of page
15-17 years
- Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis) (dTPa)
Top of page
15-49 years
- Influenza (flu) (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are medically at-risk)
- Pneumococcal polysaccharide (23vPPV) (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are medically at-risk)
Top of page
50 years and over
- Influenza (flu) (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people)
- Pneumococcal polysaccharide (23vPPV) (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people)
Top of page
65 years and over
- Influenza (flu)
- Pneumococcal polysaccharide (23vPPV)
Now, Michael's Immunisation Schedule.
Unlike the NIPS, I would like our schedule to be more accommodating to the needs of the individual child. Accordingly, I have separated the schedule out into three broad groups, which I term "Low Risk", "High Risk", and "Special Needs".
The reason that I stratify children in this way is because, at the age groups we are examining, especially in the pre-school age groups, there are marked differences in the needs of families who have children who attend child care, or who have children in this age group who have siblings or other close social contacts who attend child care or school, and those families who do not. As a result, I believe it is justifiable to be more aggressive in our preventative treatment of children who are exposed to an increased risk of contracting the more serious vaccine-preventable diseases.
LOW RISK
Birth:
None
2 Months:
None
4 Months:
None
6 Months:
None
12 Months:
None
2-3 Years:
Tetanus* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
4 Years / Before School:
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB)
Meningococcal
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
High School:
Varicella (Chicken Pox) (Only children who have not previously been infected)
NOTES:
Children in low-risk social situations are unlikely to contract vaccine preventable diseases during infancy. The incidence of serious side effects for most infant vaccine-preventable diseases is low, and was continuing to reduce before the introduction of global immunisation programs. As a result, as long as our children remain in a "low risk" group - that is, no signficant family or social contacts who are in childcare, under parental supervision during play - we believe the risks inherent in giving immunisations before the age of 2 (that is, the need to give multiple doses to achieve a good immunological response) are not warranted. Instead, we intend to give them single doses at a later age, when their immune systems are mature enough to mount a sufficient immune response after one exposure.
The government recommends the chicken pox vaccine (varicella) at the age of 18 months. While chicken pox is known to very rarely cause an inflammation of the lining of the brain, the varicella vaccine is very new and not extensively used. We suggest that it be withheld until high shcool age, and only given to those children who have not previously been infected with chicken pox, as the symptoms of chicken pox become worse as a person becomes older.
Certain immunisations recommended by the government are not included in this schedule. This is because we believe that the risks associated with these immunisations do not outweigh the likelihood of contracting the disease and the associated risk factors if the disease is contracted. These include:
Hepatitis B - this vaccine is now given to all children, even though hepatitis B is spread through contact with infected body fluids. We believe children in a low risk group are not at risk of exposure to hepatitis B and thus, do not require this vaccination.
Pneumococcal Conjugate - this virus can result in meningeal infections, such as meningitis or meningococcal sepsis, but requires close contact with infected children and, during infancy, requires repeated boosters to attain a good immunological response. While giving it at the age of 2-3 would be an option, the outcomes for children who are infected are considerably better after the age of 2, so we do not include it on our schedule.
Polio - the only cases of this disease in decades have been as a result of exposure by immunocompromised people to the vaccine itself! Polio no longer exists in Australia.
Rotavirus - rotavirus causes serious dehydration only in children under the age of six months. It is spread by faecal contamination from children who are infected. Before the age of six months, children are not independently mobile, so it is generally not difficult to prevent rotavirus infection in the low-risk group.
Measles-Mumps-Rubella - Of these three diseases, measles is the most concerning, as it does rarely cause an inflammation of the brain in some children that can lead to long-term complications. However, there is a mounting body of anecdotal evidence that suggests a link between immunisations in general, and the MMR immunisation in particular, and the onset of autism. Recently, immunisatio researchers have acknowledged this link, and have called for more research in order to find the cause. As a result, we suggest that the use of the MMR should be considered with caution. If it is decided that it be used, we think some consideration should be given to delaying it from 12 months to 2-3 years, or older, in order that the requirement for a second booster (normally given at 4 years) can be omitted.
* Tetanus - In an ideal world, we would give a single tetanus booster injection by itself once the child begins walking, as there becomes a risk of a penetrating injury to the feet once the child becomes mobile which could result in tetanus. However, tetanus for children is only available as part of the diptheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. We do not believe immunisation for diptheria is required in this country, as it does not exist, and vaccination for pertussis is not warranted at this age in children in this risk group, as whooping cough requires extensive contact with ill children (approximately three to four hours of close contact) to be spread.
* Pertussis - See the note for tetanus, above. We hold pertussis until this age so that only one dose is required to confer a good immunological response, and once the child enters school and has unsupervised play with potentially sick children, the chances of contracting pertussis are increased.
HIGH RISK
Birth:
None
2 Months:
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB)
Pneumococcal Conjugate
Rotavirus (if in childcare before 6 months)
4 Months:
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB)
Pneumococcal Conjugate
Rotavirus (if in childcare before 6 months)
6 Months:
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB)
Pneumococcal Conjugate
Rotavirus (if in childcare before 6 months)
12 Months:
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB)
Meningococcal
2 Years:
Tetanus* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
4 Years / Before School:
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)* / Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTPa)
High School:
Varicella (Chicken Pox) (Only children who have not previously been infected)
NOTES:
Children who are in child care or day care spend extensive periods of time mixing with other children without parental supervision. As a result, there is an increased potential for children in this group to contract vaccine-preventable diseases at a young age. This also applies to children who have siblings, as sibling also spend extensive amounts of time together.
The government recommends the chicken pox vaccine (varicella) at the age of 18 months. While chicken pox is known to very rarely cause an inflammation of the lining of the brain, the varicella vaccine is very new and not extensively used. We suggest that it be withheld until high shcool age, and only given to those children who have not previously been infected with chicken pox, as the symptoms of chicken pox become worse as a person becomes older.
Certain immunisations recommended by the government are not included in this schedule. This is because we believe that the risks associated with these immunisations do not outweigh the likelihood of contracting the disease and the associated risk factors if the disease is contracted. These include:
Hepatitis B - this vaccine is now given to all children, even though hepatitis B is spread through contact with infected body fluids. We believe children in a low risk group are not at risk of exposure to hepatitis B and thus, do not require this vaccination.
Polio - the only cases of this disease in decades have been as a result of exposure by immunocompromised people to the vaccine itself! Polio no longer exists in Australia.
Rotavirus - rotavirus causes serious dehydration only in children under the age of six months. It is spread by faecal contamination from children who are infected. Before the age of six months, children are not independently mobile, so it is generally not difficult to prevent rotavirus infection, unless they are in childcare at this age. If so, the rotavirus immunisation may be warranted.
Measles-Mumps-Rubella - Of these three diseases, measles is the most concerning, as it does rarely cause an inflammation of the brain in some children that can lead to long-term complications. However, there is a mounting body of anecdotal evidence that suggests a link between immunisations in general, and the MMR immunisation in particular, and the onset of autism. Recently, immunisatio researchers have acknowledged this link, and have called for more research in order to find the cause. As a result, we suggest that the use of the MMR should be considered with caution. If it is decided that it be used, we think some consideration should be given to delaying it from 12 months to 2-3 years, or older, in order that the requirement for a second booster (normally given at 4 years) can be omitted.
SPECIAL NEEDS
Birth:
Hepatitis B (Children born into social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts)
2 Months:
Hepatitis B (Children born into social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts)
4 Months:
Hepatitis B (Children born into social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts)
6 Months:
Hepatitis B (Children born into social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts) OR AT 12 MONTHS
12 Months:
Hepatitis B (Children born into social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts) OR AT SIX MONTHS
2 Years:
Hepatitis A (Children living in social environments where there is a high risk of body fluid contamination or injury or transmission from infected social contacts)
4 Years / Before School:
Mumps* / Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) (Males Only)
High School:
Human Papilloma Virus ("Cervical Cancer Vaccine", HPV) (Females Only)
Rubella* / Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) (Females who have no immunity to rubella only)
Measles-Mumps-Rubella - see notes regarding the MMR vaccine above. Of these diseases, two are of interest to specific groups. Mumps is generally a short-lived disease with few serious side effects, for females. For males, however, there is a rare side effect of orchitis, or inflammation of the testes, that can result in infertility later in life due to scarring. Ideally, if it were possible, we would immunise males only, and imminuse them specifically for mumps, as opposed to the MMR combination. We suggest waiting until before school, as at school, the risk of transmission increases and the immune system is mature enough that a single dose of the MMR is usually sufficient to provoke a good immunological response.
For females, rubella (german measles) is a concern, as, if contracted during pregnany, it can cause fetal abnormalities. However, this is only a concern for girls and women of childbearing age. Ideally, if it were possible, we would immunise females only, and immunise them specifically for rubella, as opposed to the MMR combination. We see no reason to give this immunisation any earlier than high school / the commencement of menstruation, for the obvious reason that pre-pubescent girls are unlikely to fall pregnant.
Human Papilloma Virus ("Cervical Cancer Vaccine", HPV) - while this is a new vaccine, and so little information is known about it's long-term use, by the time it is given the immune system is fully matured. Given that cervical cancer is insidious, often fatal, and difficult to detect, we have no problems in recommending it's use at this age.
Whew! Now I have sore fingers...
Wow, thank you so much Michael, that's fantastic. I really appreciate you going to so much trouble to post that info for us.
I am finding this very interesting.. I never thought twice about immunising my children but since friday (dd had a reaction to the Rotavirus vac) I am seriously rethinking things.,,
I'm so confused LOL! I would have thought that seeing as the baby bonus is now even higher than the maternity allowance was it would mean that those who didn't immunise shouldn't be entitled to it. I think they need to change the name of it if it is given regardless of immunisation or not because I don't see the point in having it, not when the immunisation itself is free anyway *shrug* Sorry to go OT... back to it ;):
Yeah, but if they change the name of it, then people won't be encouraged to immunise quite as much - you know, people might think 'ahhh can't be bothered taking bub down, but I'd better cos we get the payment if we stay on schedule'. You know? Is that too conspiracy theory of me? :p
Personally I wonder if the payment shouldn't be an 'informed choice' payment, where it gets given either way but when the parent has learned about vaccines, how they work, what's in them, the social benefits, any risks, what to do in case of reaction - balanced info - not to make people lean a certain way, but just to inform them.
Like conscientious objectors have to have a chat with their GP, it should be conditional on an info session, or spiel from a GP or health nurse.
Just my (off topic) thought for the day. :p
It pretty much is, Nelle, in that to register as a conscientious objector, you have to get a form signed by your GP stating that they have explained the pros and cons of immunisation to you. Of course, depending on the GP, it will probably be a pretty one-sided explanation...
Yeah, I was saying (not very well! :p) that I think (in my never humble opinion) that everyone should have to get the money conditional on being informed, not just conscientious objectors. :)
I like your idea Nelle. I think what Michael is trying to say though, that the info given is very one-sided, so it's a bit of a pointless excerise IYKWIM?
I think I'm too tired to explain myself very well tonight!
The government are not paying to educate people on both sides of the immunisation arguement. The incentive is paid bc if the majority of babies are immunised then there won't be breakout s of disease that the government through Medicare will be paying for.
It would be nice if the government was concerned with parents being informed on the treatments given to their children, but it basically comes down to economics.
It is good that this thread has opened up discussion, and some people who may not have thought about it before are questioning and seeking the info.
Kate
Just to add - the first new case of polio in Australia occurred recently in Melbourne (2007)
"July 1st, the first case of Polio flew into Australia in more than 20 years"
While it was a case of the person with polio entering into Australia it does highlight that we are not completely free of diseases that have been mostly eradicated in this country due to the increased ability for travel - both outside and into this country.
Hehe Janie, that's alright if you're too tired, I'm too pregnant to understand anything anyway! :D
Oh yeah Kate, I totally agree with you about the 'greater good' thing, in fact, that was a real sticking point when I was thinking about it all. So I can definitly see why people do, and would be a reason why I might in the future, I'd hate for my boy to carry rubella, and pass it on. I'm not completely anti-immunisation. I'm just aware that there's always a flip side, and the flip side of immunisation is enough for me to wait until River's older before re-considering vaccinations.
Thankyou for that Michael, will have a good read over and investigate a bit more!!!