So we go to Urgent Care and the only doctor available is… the one I didn’t want to see. Farking great.
Shanna’s fine, of course. I got to answer a bunch of insulting questions about whether or not I’m letting Shanna play with bleach.
edited to add:
She didn’t literally ask if let her play with bleach. She was just really persistent in asking over and over about every single cleaning product in the house and whether or not they are locked up.
wtf play with bleach????
My thought exactly.
She asked repeatedly about where cleaning supplies are kept and if I have put any sort of device on the cabinet to keep Shanna from getting in. When I said that we have baby-proofed she asked if I was very certain my child couldn’t get in. Then she asked if we had a hot tub or pool and where the chemicals are kept.
OMFG how rude.. I mean if the baby came in and looked awful and like it hadn’t been fed in days I *might* accept asking those questions in those ways.. but dude… it’s a healthy baby that you’re bringing in for a preventative visit…. fuck them!
Er, no. It’s a baby with a suspected ear infection.
Plus, why would you ask about bleach based on malnutrition?
Not that the repeated questions about bleach are in any way deserved, but a single question wouldn’t be out of line.
I think that’s what I was trying to get across… if you had a baby with lots of other things that looked wrong then *maybe* the repeated questioning would have made sense…
And I didn’t feel fussy about the first question. It was when she kept asking that I felt fussy.
I have a good friend who is a physician and she says they are trained to repeat the same question in a couple different ways because sometimes they get different answers depending on how they ask.
Still, what does child proofing have to do with an ear infection?
I don’t come in for well baby visits and I don’t vaccinate. I’m suspect. She was also really persistent in trying to determine if Shanna is meeting general milestones and she tried to do as many “just in case” tests as I would allow her to do. (You don’t get to stick my kid with needles without cause.)
You don’t vaccinate?
We are going to delay vaccinations. There are a number of reasons, which are based on research. I realize that this is a controversial decision so I don’t talk about it on my journal much.
T told me about this thread, maybe to get me going, because few things rankle me more than refusing to vaccinate. 😉 But refusing and waiting are two different things. I don’t think the latter is nearly as controversial, especially if vaccination is done before the kid has significant contact with other children (i.e. she’s at home, not at daycare).
I’d be concerned about taking her halfway across the world, though — there have been many reports of unvaccinated babies bringing back measles and infecting all the other too-young-to-vaccinate infants in a waiting room (not to mention the plane). And many of these cases have been simply trips to Europe… not what I would consider the most dangerous place to travel… but with lots of parents buying into hype media, vaccination rates are going down and rates of things like measles and pertussis are going up.
Some sources:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080213/news_1n13measles.html
http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/measles_making_a_comeback
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18786588?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18716580?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I can get you the actual articles on this or other topics if you want them (the latter two links are only abstracts).
Uhh… they don’t vaccinate for measles until 12 months anyway. So uhm, yeah.
And apparently they start immunizing for pertussis somewhere around 2 months. What’s your point? I certainly don’t know how old your kid is or when you are planning to travel, and primarily was offering access to information on the subject.
But now I know why I don’t enjoy your journal much: someone tries to offer something, even non-judgmentally, and you bite their hand with some bitchy response. It’s not any wonder you had problems with the woman at Urgent Care. Duly noted as far as I’m concerned: I’ll take my business somewhere else.
I tend to ask multiple people about my interpretation of your comments before I respond because I try not to be overly bitchy. I am usually told that they agree with my assessment of your tone and that my response is in line. I’m ok with you having a different metric.
And something you have never seemed to understand is that I haven’t asked you for anything. I don’t want you to offer me anything. If you don’t like my writing or attitude or whatever, just remember: you already unfriended me. You have no reason to read what I write.
Our decisions are for several reasons, but one important point is that in many cases, what’s good for the global reduction of measles and pertussis (full vaccination of everybody) is not necessarily what’s best for a specific child (which depends on disease risk versus vaccination risk).
Vaccination risk is reasonable to assess by looking up research on vaccines. For measles, pertussis, and a number of other vaccines, it’s pretty straightforward to get research on at least some of the vaccines (not 100% guaranteed to be the same one a child receives, but certainly better than doing no research).
You could argue (at least one of our friends does) that this is a selfish and short-sighted way to evaluate — purely based on maximum rate of survival and minimum injury to our own children specifically rather than thinking globally. We are, in that sense, Not Good Socialists, as well as being Not Good Utilitarians (in the “greatest good for the greatest number” sense, a la John Stuart Mill). We are valuing our specific welfare, and that of our young’un, significantly above the welfare of others.
To that I would respond, “yup.”
The problem I have with this state of affairs is that by and large, it relies on everyone else making the opposite decision as you.
Delaying or avoiding vaccinations relies in large part on herd immunity to reduce or eliminate exposure to the diseases in question. In other words, because everyone else takes the path of communalism, with the incumbent (unsubstantiated) risk of whatever neurological disorders you think exists, you can choose not to take that potential risk without suffering any of the consequences.
The system will tolerate a few freeloaders, but if any significant fraction of people decide to do things the way you do, herd immunity collapses and we start having major outbreaks of vanquished diseases again.
To summarize: the ‘selfish’ choice you have made is only a realistic and valid choice because everyone else doesn’t make the same one. You rely on others to be communalistic and accept a certain level of risk or sacrifice, then take advantage of their choices to avoid the same risk or cost.
The problem I have with this state of affairs is that by and large, it relies on everyone else making the opposite decision as you.
No it isn’t. Here, let me demonstrate: the problem with specializing in something other than subsistence farming is that you need a bunch of subsistence farmers (currently only a few, originally well over 90% of the population) to make the opposite choice or you all starve to death. You don’t have a problem with that. So no, your problem isn’t that the majority have to make the opposite decision.
You have a point about herd immunity, though pretty much all of these vaccines have limited duration, so only-vaccinated-once old people (age roughly 30+ for measles) are also screwing up your vast majority of herd immunity.
However, let me take issue with a different point. You say, with the incumbent (unsubstantiated) risk of whatever neurological disorders you think exists. I’m assuming you’re talking about autism/asperger’s and ADHD, which may be Krissy’s worry (not sure), but it’s not so much mine. Actually, lots of vaccines have significant risk of causing the disease they aim to prevent, or other nasty side effect up to and including permanent damage or death.
You could argue that by freeloading, we’re not taking our fair chance of our kid dying — true. And that we’re screwing up herd immunity by not taking our fair chance on hurting the baby — also true, again if you ignore all those no-longer-immune older people, who also have a smaller risk of nasty side effects. That is, herd immunity is already screwed up, but we could still be risking our kid for the ideal of herd immunity. Y’know, on principle.
I’m amused that you conclude by putting the word ‘selfish’ in scare quotes. Is it not *really* selfish? If so, you skipped that part of your argument.
No it isn’t. Here, let me demonstrate: the problem with specializing in something other than subsistence farming is that you need a bunch of subsistence farmers (currently only a few, originally well over 90% of the population) to make the opposite choice or you all starve to death. You don’t have a problem with that. So no, your problem isn’t that the majority have to make the opposite decision.
Actually, if your decision to not be a subsistent farmer resulted in a gain to you over being one, but no gain (or even a loss) to the rest of the community, I would have a problem with it. Please don’t strawman me by assuming you know my answer to your question and responding as if the point had already been answered.
You have a point about herd immunity, though pretty much all of these vaccines have limited duration, so only-vaccinated-once old people (age roughly 30+ for measles) are also screwing up your vast majority of herd immunity.
This is a point that supports my argument as much as yours. First of all, for vaccines such as MMR, the immunity gained has as much duration as the immunity from actually getting the illness, according to the NIH. Long term, potentially lifelong. Secondly, the point of herd immunity is not that everyone has immunity, but that enough people have it to prevent any significantly-sized pool of vulnerable people from accruing.
Say, for example, that the MMR vaccine’s immunity fades after age 50, so the average grandparent is vulnerable to measles. If every grandchild is being vaccinated, then there is still effectively no problem, since there isn’t a pool of infectious individuals coming in contact with the potentially vulnerable grandparents. If, on the other hand, a fraction of children are not vaccinated, those unvaccinated individuals represent a potential vector for the virus to spread to those whose immunity has faded. Thus, we see that vaccinating children provides a benefit even in the case where vaccinated immunity fades over time.
Actually, lots of vaccines have significant risk of causing the disease they aim to prevent, or other nasty side effect up to and including permanent damage or death.
That depends on your definition of “significant,” doesn’t it? The MMR vaccine, for example, can cause a very attenuated version of infection – fever, malaise, rash, potential joint pain – in between 10 and 15% of takers, for between 5-21 days after vaccination. Compared to actually getting M, M, or R, which can cause brain damage, sterility, and death.
You could argue that by freeloading, we’re not taking our fair chance of our kid dying — true. And that we’re screwing up herd immunity by not taking our fair chance on hurting the baby — also true, again if you ignore all those no-longer-immune older people, who also have a smaller risk of nasty side effects. That is, herd immunity is already screwed up, but we could still be risking our kid for the ideal of herd immunity. Y’know, on principle.
As previously covered, herd immunity doesn’t require perfect immunization to be effective. The idea is to prevent contagion and limit exposure. Your individual child not being immunized doesn’t destroy herd immunity, nor a hundred more just like her, if there’s enough room between them. 100 within a square mile of you, on the other hand, would be a significant issue.
As previously covered, your strategy in this case does absolutely minimize risk on your child’s part, but at the expense of everyone else’s child, who have to take the risk you avoid in order to make your strategy work. It also exposes those who have immunity that may have faded (whether gained via infection or immunization) to infection from your daughter.
I’m amused that you conclude by putting the word ‘selfish’ in scare quotes. Is it not *really* selfish? If so, you skipped that part of your argument.
Scare quotes? What are those? I was using actual quotes, because selfish was your word, not mine.
I’m going to do something I don’t generally do. I’m freezing this thread and thus ending this discussion. You are entitled to any opinions you want to have but you don’t get to tell me what I should or should not do as a parent. I don’t really care what your opinion is on this topic. I don’t really care what anyone’s opinion is on this topic. This is my child and my call. End of story.
ugh.
I hope you find someone better, and soon.