Back in February I wrote a post about how to quantify risk. One of the examples I gave was of friends who refuse to inoculate their children against measles, mumps and rubella, preferring homeopathic treatments instead.
For some reason, their choice gets under my skin. Perhaps it was the bogus science or perhaps it was the feeling that they were getting a free ride from everyone else’s inoculation.
Of course, it’s absolutely taboo to criticise the way people bring up their children. In addition, as a society, we place a higher value on individual freedom than we do on the common good. Still…
My interest is in the way people think and how we communicate complicated information. I’m also interested in why I’m so bothered by this issue.
This is why I was fascinated to read an article in the New York Times today (Public health risk seen as parents reject vaccines) that made me think about this question in a different way.
According to the article, 242,000 children die from measles each year. In 2000, it was more like one million. Measles inoculations save the lives of about 750,000 children each year. Wow! Science delivers another miracle.
Now imagine going back in time to 2000 and insisting that, under no circumstances, should we immunise children against measles because of the (unproven) association with autism. Such a decision would condemn millions – MILLIONS – of children around the world to an unnecessary and avoidable death.
It’s obviously not a straight choice between child mass murder and homeopathy but there is definitely some muddled thinking and bad information out there. I wonder if the NY Times might have chosen a different headline. “Confused parents endanger children” comes to mind.
PS There’s an interesting article on Slate that covers the alleged links between autism and the MMR vaccine: Why there’s no dispelling the vaccine-causes-autism link
Related posts:
Zachary Overline
Chris
Daniel Rose
hell
Master Dayton
mihaitur
Paul
TheKid
TransABC
Whitney Segura
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Goodness, them’s fightin’ words, son! I must respectfully disagree with your position. You’re making the assumption that when families make these decisions about vaccinations, they are making a completely informed decision. Yet I doubt that most parents have the NY Times statistics in front of them, or that their doctors educate them on the mortality differences between 2000 and the present.
Furthermore, while there may not be sufficient data linking thimerosal and autism, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence — and as copywriters, we know that word-of-mouth can be far more powerful than statistics. While I personally agree that the benefits of vaccinations outweigh the risks, I don’t believe I can make judgments against those families who decide otherwise — which is what the closing headline seems to do.
The MMR was a hot topic of discussion in the antenatal group we were part of.
The most annoying thing for me was the attitude of:
* If the gov denies there is a problem then there must be a problem because they are denying it
* If the gov admits there’s a problem then there must be a problem bec they’ve admitted it.
So they can never accept that there isn’t a problem.
Likewise, they never spoke of managing risk or taking the least risky option.
Tim
Couldn’t agree more, but you try telling parents who don’t vaccinate, “You’re child is a disease vector. Please don’t let your precious darling within 50m of a child under under 2 years.” and see how far that gets you.
(50m is the approximate range at which measles is contagious. We vaccinate against it at the age of 1.)
Actually, that gives me an idea. If you’re sending a kid to a playschool, ask them whether they have done a risk assessment on a child getting measles….
Yes, I quite like the idea of the “Health and Safety” lobby taking on the “Anti-innoculation” lobby. An irresistable force meeting an immovable object, perhaps.
I think the insurers would get the deciding vote.
But seriously … the issue isn’t quite as clear-cut as I painted it. There’s the matter of passive immunity conferred by the mother. I’ll ask a paediatrician of my acquaintance about it next time I see him.
I think you have to do what’s best for your family. If your child is perfectly healthy before an immunization, and suddenly has food allergies, or a kidney infection, or autism afterwards, you have to blame the immunization (two of those three happened to my own child). Just because it didn’t happen to your child doesn’t mean it’s not true. Look at the Amish–it’s rare their kids have food allergies or autism, asthma or rheumatoid arthritis… it’s rampant in our society. You may be saving a child, but at what cost? Most articles fail to mention that kids who die from these preventable illnesses live in third world countries and do not have proper medical care, or a hospital nearby. Do most people who get chicken pox die from it? I think not. It’s mass hysteria created by the media and smart marketing of phamaceutical companies. Vaccines are a billion dollar business–3-7 billion with each new vaccine added. Most are new, and most doctors don’t know the long term effectiveness of vaccines. I’m not saying, don’t vaccinate, but I’ve read medical journals where doctors suggest waiting until the immune system is developed (after the age of 2) to immunize. I also think we should do things in moderation. When I was a kid, we were required to have 5 immunizations. Now it’s 22, and growing every year. Do your own research. Parents who don’t immunize have usually done the research. It’s very difficult to stand up for what’s right when people go in and blindly follow doctor’s orders. Every child is not the same.
@Lady S: I think that’s a pretty good summary of the anti-immunisation case put in a reasonable and friendly way. I don’t agree with the line you take but it’s good to have the debate. It’s an interesting point about the Amish. If true, perhaps it suggests conscientious parents should also get rid of their cars and buy horses.
{ 1 trackback }