Vaccinations
So today I found out that it is, apparently, no longer possible to get the ethical version of the vaccine for mumps or measles.
The vaccine that is offered is the combined MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. In terms of ethics, the rubella vaccine is the worst offender. It was derived from the cells of two children whose mothers were advised to abort them because the mothers contracted rubella, which could cause complications for unborn children.
No more children will die if I did choose to vaccinate my daughter, but that's not something I'm willing to participate in. I don't think it's okay to benefit from murder.
I was actually kind of impressed by the doctor. When we were first deciding we had a list of ethical versus inethical vaccines put in Firstborn's folder. Well, I had just assumed they were following it until at her last visit they tried to give her MMR, which I knew was not ethically produced. Since then, though, they did try to get the ethical versions, even trying to order them from out of the country, but apparently they are no longer made and won't be for at least 2 years. The doctor would really prefer she were vaccinated, because Firstborn would apparently be at risk if she came into contact with children from other countries. And measles and mumps are bad. Apparently there haven't been any cases in our area recently, though there have been 2 in the US this year. So it doesn't seem like it's really risky....
I also refused chickenpox, but apparently a lot of people do that, and they didn't push too hard on that one. She did get Hib, pneumococcal, and dtap.
Firstborn is on antibiotics indefinitely for urinary reflux to prevent a UTI, which kills me too, and I know it can't be good for her. This is something she's likely to outgrow and they didn't test for up until recently. If she gets another UTI they want to do surgery--for a condition that will likely correct itself within a couple years.
I'm glad that we don't have to contend with epidemics. But I don't agree that it's okay to kill a child to prevent an epidemic. I don't think that my daughter needs to be on antibiotics--but I took drugs for more than half of my pregnancy that may well have saved my other little one's life.
Where is the line between the part of medicine that is a blessing, and overmedication?
Well, I guess that's something the government will be deciding....
The vaccine that is offered is the combined MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. In terms of ethics, the rubella vaccine is the worst offender. It was derived from the cells of two children whose mothers were advised to abort them because the mothers contracted rubella, which could cause complications for unborn children.
No more children will die if I did choose to vaccinate my daughter, but that's not something I'm willing to participate in. I don't think it's okay to benefit from murder.
I was actually kind of impressed by the doctor. When we were first deciding we had a list of ethical versus inethical vaccines put in Firstborn's folder. Well, I had just assumed they were following it until at her last visit they tried to give her MMR, which I knew was not ethically produced. Since then, though, they did try to get the ethical versions, even trying to order them from out of the country, but apparently they are no longer made and won't be for at least 2 years. The doctor would really prefer she were vaccinated, because Firstborn would apparently be at risk if she came into contact with children from other countries. And measles and mumps are bad. Apparently there haven't been any cases in our area recently, though there have been 2 in the US this year. So it doesn't seem like it's really risky....
I also refused chickenpox, but apparently a lot of people do that, and they didn't push too hard on that one. She did get Hib, pneumococcal, and dtap.
Firstborn is on antibiotics indefinitely for urinary reflux to prevent a UTI, which kills me too, and I know it can't be good for her. This is something she's likely to outgrow and they didn't test for up until recently. If she gets another UTI they want to do surgery--for a condition that will likely correct itself within a couple years.
I'm glad that we don't have to contend with epidemics. But I don't agree that it's okay to kill a child to prevent an epidemic. I don't think that my daughter needs to be on antibiotics--but I took drugs for more than half of my pregnancy that may well have saved my other little one's life.
Where is the line between the part of medicine that is a blessing, and overmedication?
Well, I guess that's something the government will be deciding....
posted by Young Christian Woman at 10:34 AM
4 Comments:
I must say that I respectfully disagree with your choice not to get your daughter vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. First of all I do not believe that children and their health should be used as their parents' political statements. They are human beings and have a right to life and health. If you want to make a point write to your Congressman/woman, go to a demonstration in Washington or create a petition. Do not jeopardize your child's health in order to "take a stand."
You state that your reasons for abstaining from this vaccination are because you do not believe in "benefiting from murder." But at the same time you write that your daughter will be okay because there have only been two cases of measles/mumps in the US last year. This low statistic is because the vast majority of Americans are vaccinated! Therefore, you can make this choice with relative peace of mind due to the fact that most people in the US have "benefited from murder." So how does that make you any less of a beneficiary of "murder"?
Lastly, if you believe that the creation of the rubella vaccine is unethical (I do not know the specific origins of this vaccine or its history so I am neither confirming nor believing your claims) then how can you let the loss of these two children be in vain? By abstaining from this vaccine you cannot bring them back to life. Instead, you put the life of your daughter AND your unborn son in danger. (If your daughter should get sick, the fetus could contract these disease too.)
Obviously you are a loving and thoughtful mother with strong convictions. I can respect that. I just wanted to give you some more topics to think about on the issue of vaccinations. Good luck with your pregnancy! I will pray for your family.
Yours sincerely,
Molly
I am not using my daughter as a political statement; I am trying to do what is right. I know that if I knew how that vaccine was made, I would not have wanted it.
The thing is that vaccines don't have to use aborted children and have never had to, and it is not a practice I support. I am trying my best to keep my daughter healthy and usually follow the recommendations of medical professionals.
I am not trying to claim that not getting the vaccine is the one right answer, but somehow I think if it were widely known that some vaccines were created using aborted children, there would be enough demand that there would be an alternative. And I try to do my part to make that public, where appropriate.
There are plenty of parents who choose not to vaccinate at all, because they believe it is best for their children, and I can respect both points of view.
I do not agree that there is any danger to my son right now--he cannot be exposed to the disease through me if I have been vaccinated. I also don't believe that my children are in real danger.
If I want an alternative, but use the inethical version, there is no increased demand for the ethical version.
I didn't even know when I had my children vaccinated that they used fetal cell lines in some of them.
My children all developed autism, but I was told it was not because of the vaccines, and I accepted that. But then my fourth daughter was terribly ill after each vaccine series (I mean, really really sick with strange symptoms for 6-8 weeks each and every time.) So I stopped vaccinating her after her 6 month shots just about killed her and she got well and hasn't been sick since then, 2 years ago.
But I have people angry with me (even doctors) for choosing to stop her vaccines. apparently watching my child die so that no one will catch anything from her is an acceptable sacrifice to OTHERS but not to myself.
re the fetal cell lines, the new swine flu vaccine has fetal cell lines and it's important to recognize that the cell lines are breaking down and they are going to require new cell lines because you can't keep duplicating it and get the same results. They've already admitted to it breaking down currently and will need to be replaced soon.
sarah springolife at trostfamily dot org
I hadn't heard that they were going to need to replace cell lines in established vaccines... that adds a whole other layer of disrespect for life.
I also didn't know about fetal cells being used in the swine flu vaccine, though I had heard enough else to convince me not to go for it (like last time swine flue was a threat, the vaccine killed more people than the disease, and drug companies wouldn't work on the vaccine until the government signed something saying that anyone harmed by the vaccine could not sue them (or the government).
Post a Comment
<< Home