Re: A vaccine to save lives
From: Jamie (ajfields@pine-net.com)
Tue Feb 6 14:43:27 2007
Thanks. I sort of felt like I was being pigeonholed as a
head-in-the-sand fundie, when my objections aren't religious.
I have stairstepped children from 11 down to #6 due in April. It was
only by blind luck that we avoided the rotavirus vaccine-I had no kids
in the target age range during the short time it was out. Sometimes we
are just too quick to jump on the newest miracle.
At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Kim Elise Goldman wrote:
>
>Jamie,
>
>Again we are on the same page. I DO get that nothing is 100%
>protective. I DO get that I can't mandate my daughter's behavior (or
>that of a rapist). But what I DON'T get is how the government thinks
>it is ok to MANDATE that my DAUGHTER receive a vaccine with VERY
>LITTLE LONG TERM evidence that it is safe, effective AND does no harm.
>
>To those who are jumping on this bandwagon......does the word
>thalidomide mean anything to you other than adjuvant therapy for
>people with aids?
>Anyone remember the reason that we suddenly had to revaccinate
>everyone who got early MMR vaccines?
>
>I prefer to make my healthcare decisions myself and to make my minor
>children's healthcare decisions (including them in the process where
>appropriate) and not have them made by a governor who is buddies with
>a drug company that stands to make a fortune on the vaccine.
>
>Kim
>
>On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Jamie wrote:
>
>> I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. I have no
>> illusions that I can control my daughter's behavior choices. I can
>> hope
>> that she will choose as she has been taught. My objection is not that
>> the vaccine will allow her to escape the consequences of "bad"
>> behavior,
>> or that it will encourage promiscuity. My objection is that the
>> vaccine
>> is too new, and that my daughter CAN make choices that give her equal
>> protection. Once the vaccine has been around long enough for any
>> serious problems to show up, I will probably promote it as a good idea
>> for young women before they become sexually active (even if that is
>> in a
>> monogamous marriage). I still think the state has no business
>> mandating
>> it for school attendance. Being present at school has nothing at
>> all to
>> do with transmission of this particular disease.
>>
>> At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, GIN11153@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamie and others,
>>>
>>> As we all know , we cannot control our daughters' behavior choices.
>>> Something like 75% of graduating high school students have had sex.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that an 18-55+ year old woman can have sex and be
>>> infected
>>> from an infected husband, boyfriend, etc. Just like with measles,
>>> mumps,
>>> tetanus, polio, etc., every child should have this new vaccine at
>>> age 11 as is
>>> recommended, to protect them for life. Just read a few days ago
>>> that it's
>>> recommended boys have the vaccination also, to prevent to women.
>>>
>>> Gail Neuman RNC CPHW SNP LNC
>>> student nurse practitioner and student midwife
>>> certified high risk OB/legal nurse consultant
>>> Perinatal Nurse Associates
>>> Notary Public/Certified Loan Signing Agent
>>> PrePaid Legal Sales Associate
>>> Santa Ana, CA
>>
>> --
>> JFields, RN, BSN
>>
--
JFields, RN, BSN
