Why do or don't you give the chickenpox vaccine

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 12:43 pm

Orchid wrote:

Of course, but that contradicts Merck's package insert which states that certain populations are at greater risk of severe side effects and doctors need to determine if patients are within that population before vaccinating, which we KNOW never happens in real life.

It says, in part: ----------------------- WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS ------------------------
 Evaluate individuals for immune competence prior to
administration of VARIVAX if there is a family history of congenital
or hereditary immunodeficiency. (5.2)
 Avoid contact with high-risk individuals individuals susceptible to varicella
because of possible transmission of varicella vaccine virus. (5.4)

So what exactly is clear cut? That there are no chances of side effects? Because that is demonstrably false.

Your doctor will make recommendations based on your particular case.
No one said there are no chances of side effects. The risk assessment is clear cut: Whatever potential risks exists there are not reason enough to not vaccinate. Not from any of those perspectives.
If your child has a specific medical contradiction it is a different story, but that has nothing to do with "overall risk assessments" that are applicable to the general population. A specific situation belongs to be discussed with professional to get their professional, medical opinion.
The general risk assessment is clear cut in every area imaginable. We're not talking specific cases here.
The minute that it becomes part of routine, medical care the risk assessment has already been evaluated, addressed, and it has still been deemed appropriate to proceed with that recommendation: be that vaccinations, medications, check-ups, etc.

smss

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 2:37 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

HY, it doesn't work like that. There is some level of risk that is deemed appropriate. As long as you follow what medical professionals and even psychological professionals advise, then the risk is deemed appropriate: wearing seat-belts, using vaccines, appropriate use of antibiotics, etc. etc. Once you start going against the normal risk and exposing your child to situations which are advised against, it becomes negligence. I don't think that that goes anywhere near labeling people who think differently. There is a lot of room for difference of thought in this comment: I'm not going to say that a parent who leaves their 6 year old how to babysit has a difference of thought and excuse it as that. Professional do not advise leaving such a young child at home: the child needs to be older, and even though there is a risk involved when leaving even an older child to babysit, it has been deemed an acceptable, lower risk than leaving a 6 year old. If you leave a 6 year home to babysit other children, you have acted negligently.

so, once again:
medical professionals, across the board, strongly recommend breastfeeding. in fact there are no risks to this, but many risks of formula-feeding have been identified. and yet, in your opinion, someone who doesn't breastfeed is not negligent, but someone who doesn't vaccinate (and vaccines are absolutely associated with risks) is negligent.

I'm just not getting it.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 2:40 pm

smss wrote:

Please quote me saying that someone who does not vaccinate is negligent since we went over it already and I never said that. In fact I can quote myself:

smss wrote:

so let's say someone breastfeeds and keeps her baby home, and doesn't vaccinate.
someone else formula-feeds, sends her baby to daycare, and vaccinates.

are either of them negligent?

Scrabble123 wrote:

I wouldn't call those parents negligent at all.
I would want the baby vaccinated, even if the child is at home because it is recommended by doctors and therefore by halacha. Also because the mother could be exposed to viruses like rotavirus or pertussis that could potentially harm the baby. I disagree with her choice not to vaccinate, but I would not call it negligent under those circumstances.

smss

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 2:47 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. That is not entirely correct. There is a concept that something foreign to individuals is scarier than something that is not, but it may also have the opposite effect: something foreign may seem less scary. It's not about scary though. There are lots of diseases that parents would like to see vaccines for and for which doctors are currently working on developing. Older adults are some of the most pro vaccine individuals you'll meet. I remember when we used to visit the old age home as part of a school requirement and the individuals heard that there was a chicken pox shot they were thrilled. They were happy because they remember their grandchildren suffering. It's not just about "being scared of a disease." I'm not afraid. It's negligent to allow your child to contract something when you can protect them against it. Yes, a small percentage of children who contract the chicken pox will have severe complications and and even smaller amount die, but that is not at all what the vaccine is about. It's also about protecting those who cannot be vaccinated and for whom the chicken would be disastrous - and being a responsible parent. It's about teaching your children that following the accepted medical opinion is not only a halachic requirement (except for some minimal percentage of individuals who completely follow an accepted Rav who feels differently - but that's way less than 1%), but a psychological one too. About being positive and engaging in normal, positive activities. It's about not getting your kid sick because you're uneducated about vaccines and then pretending that your attitude is ok because "100 years ago everyone had chicken pox and measles." No, it's not like that and comparing the chicken pox to the measles is absurd, but what else can expect from individuals who don't even understand how being distrustful and afraid to give vaccines is emotionally damaging to children - without a doubt. (notice I'm not referring to balanced individuals like HY. I'm talking about people who are so afraid of that .000001% reaction. Not individuals who feel that the risks are more than the benefits. I disagree with them, but it's not fear based. Fear based administration of vaccines is wrong as well and unhealthy for children. Everything has to be done for the right reasons - and fear is 99% of the time not a healthy reason).

I can write on a thread that I'd slap a child in the face and be attacked, but knowingly exposing children to the chicken pox - well that's ok because, "it's just chicken pox. Everyone used to get it. It's an annoyance." Yeahhhhhhh, responsible, respectful? Give me a break. Despicable.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 3:31 pm

I apologize. I see where that could have been misunderstood. I was referring to the mother in the op who knew her child was exposed to chicken pox and chose not to accept any prophylactic treatment.

I'll clarify. While I do not agree with parents who choose not to vaccinate for non medical reasons, I do not feel that that act alone is enough to call them negligent. I would call a non vacating parent negligent when:

1. They knowingly expose the child to a disease when there are other appropriate options (vaccinations).
2. They refuse prophylactic treatment when available when they know a child was exposed to a disease.
3. They allow a child exposed to a disease to possibly infect others who cannot receive vaccinations due to age or to a medical contradiction (and also the small percentage of individuals whose bodies will not develop the necessary immune response)
4. They travel internationally with an unvaccinated child.
5. They know that an immune compromised individual has regular contact with their child (school, sport activity, etc.)
6. They refuse medical treatment and vaccinations in the face of a large scale outbreak (Think Measles in Philadelphia in 1991 when the court rules that doctors could legally vaccinate children against their parents' wills).
There are probably some more examples, but no, not every parent who chooses not to vaccinate is negligent, regardless of if I agree that decision or not.

amother

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 9:15 pm

5. They know that an immune compromised individual has regular contact with their child (school, sport activity, etc.)

I forgot how to quote- sorry.

The above is my strongest reason NOT to vaccinate certain vaxes. Or do you believe shedding to be a myth? I wouldn't want my kid shedding on an immune comp individual and sending him/her into a downward spiral. Hell, my kids gave my mother in law the stomach flu years ago and she landed in the hospital from it while my kids puked for 24 hours and were fine (she was dying of lupus)-- kol v'chomer I wouldn't want them having the shedding version of a vaccine.

Anon because I'm sick of being attacked for not being pro the current vax schedule and anti certain vaxes (no reason in my mind to vax for chicken pox)

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 9:53 pm

amother wrote:

I have discussed shedding in several other threads. If you're interested in having links to them, that is fine. Basically the summary is: OPV definitely sheds and that is why it is the best method of defense when there is an outbreak of polio (even with the slight risk of paralysis), but is also why it is not used in countries like the US without any polio threat (IPV is used instead).

Other live vaccines: Not going around immune compromised individuals is out of an abundance of caution and is not reason to not give a vaccine. It doesn't shed forever, and many live virus vaccines have never been linked to an actual case of shedding, although like I said out of an abundance of caution immune comprised individuals should not be around individuals who received live vaccines recently (approx 2 weeks - must be discussed with a doctor depending on the vaccine and the immune condition). For example, if you chose to vaccinate your child against measles and your MIL has an immune disorder, you would discuss with both your doctor and hers and see how long the children should not be around your MIL. Ultimately, regardless of shedding, it is safer because you have control over the "potential shedding period" whereas if your child is exposed to chicken pox or measles and you did not know, they could potentially be contagious before they are even symptomatic.

amother

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 9:57 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Your doctor will make recommendations based on your particular case.
...
The minute that it becomes part of routine, medical care the risk assessment has already been evaluated, addressed, and it has still been deemed appropriate to proceed with that recommendation: be that vaccinations, medications, check-ups, etc.

Sonograms have become a routine part of prenatal care. Does that mean that the risk assessment has been evaluated, addressed, and deemed appropriate? Actually not. Many doctors will tell you and studies have shown that there is no need for routine ultrasounds during a regular low-risk pregnancy. See here. Yet, it remains to be a standard part of care.

I am not here to argue for or against sonograms. I am merely bringing an example to show you that not always has there been, as you say, an evaluated risk assessment , etc.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 9:58 pm

amother wrote:

You think that when sonograms become apart of accepted prenatal care that someone just decided that it was a good idea and did not look into the pros/cons and safety of it? You can even ask your doctor to present you with the background information regarding sonograms and I'm sure that he/she will.

amother

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:20 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Actually, AFAIK, the history of how sonograms became part of accepted prenatal care went something along those lines. It began as a wonderful tool to be used when medically indicated and easily became used all the time. It is not recommended (here) yet continues to be done.

So it's almost like "someone jsut decided that it's a good idea" but failed to look into the pros and cons.
See more here

Honestly, Scrabble, I'm not here to debate the risks vs. benefits of ultrasounds. I am simply finding it tiresome how you uphold every and any standard medical procedure... to a fault. Not everything that the medical world does or says is as holy as Toras Moshe. I brought this up here just to show you that no, not everything that is standard care is because it is best for everyone across the board.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:27 pm

amother wrote:

1. Toras Moshe says to follow the accepted medical opinion of the time...
2. Individual differences are not taken into account for general recommendations. General recommendations apply to the general public. As an individual with an individual concern, you should discuss it with the appropriate professionals. I'm not saying that exceptions do not exist: they do, but the medical world does not make recommendations at the flip of a light switch.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:30 pm

Also, please let me know what you were trying to inform me of with that link. It discussing the reasoning behind ultrasounds during pregnancy and why they are considered medically important. Were you trying to say that people just felt it was a good idea because they assumed that it is low risk? How do you think that they assessed that? Pulled a yes or a no out of a hat? I'm seriously asking what you want me to take out of that website because it provides absolutely no cutting edge, new information. It's all pretty well known information about pre natal ultrasounds. I'm really not fighting with you here, I'm asking you what you wanted me to see or to read?

amother

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:35 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

I wanted you to see this

Quote:

Fetal ultrasound has become a routine part of prenatal care in most of the U.S. This is due to the fact that it is a low risk procedure that provides valuable information with relative ease

and this

Quote:

The ultrasound is a noninvasive procedure that, when used properly, has not demonstrated fetal harm. The long term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. It is recommended that ultrasound only be used if medically indicated.

amother

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:44 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Thank you. The first quotation is pretty standard knowledge.
I didn't see the second one. I searched the page. Is it in a different link? I've definitely heard about studies with similar conclusions, but haven't spent enough time researching it on an appropriate level because it is not yet applicable to me.

The second quote is from the first link. If you research it, you will find this same piece of information in many other places. It's just one of those pieces of information that happens to remain hidden for some reason. Those who follow standard medical procedure would not know or find out this information. It's only if you ask that you will learn.
I'm starting to sound preachy so I will step away from hijacking this chickenpox thread about sonograms. But I think my point has been made: Not every standard medical procedure has had a risk vs. benefit assessment that was clearly done with the result being that the benefits powerfully overweighed the risks. Sometimes it's a matter of convenience, money, or other motivation which is not in the best interest of the patient. Same goes for internals during pregnancy. Same goes for other medical procedures which shall henceforth remain unnamed. Tongue Out

(Hint: see the title of the thread)