Right Mothering

I read Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit throughout each workday, but was disappointed yesterday to read his posting on vaccinations.  He refers to a recent article in his local newspaper and includes a link to an earlier article of his that was published in August.

My perspective on vaccination was shaped by the time I lived in Western Europe, which included the birth and first three years of my daughter’s life.  I gave birth in a free-standing birth house, and a family doctor performed the first check-up in our home the morning after.  He was one of only two doctors who would support the mission of the birthhouse in this way.  We were very lucky that he then took our daughter as a patient.  He practiced homeopathy in addition to conventional medicine.  We trusted him and his recommendations regarding vaccination.

In this western European country, there are no vaccination requirements, ever.  The choice to vaccinate is considered a sacred right of the parents.  Our doctor recommended selective vaccination, beginning at 6 months.  We vaccinated only against those diseases that have are likely to have severe effects – polio, diphtheria, and tetanus.  He also recommended we consider vaccination against rubella when our daughter was of childbearing age.

When we were planning our relocation to the United States, and I began to explore pre-school options, I was shocked by the long list of required vaccinations.  We went to the doctor to ask him to administer the necessary vaccines, or at least one or two, accompanied with his usual homeopathic vaccine drainage.  He refused.  He considered the administration of the remaining vaccines a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

Now, I do not wish to get into details of the pros and cons of each vaccine; I lack the expertise.  But I can share this perspective.  Although some of the vaccinations and their requirement have clear merit, wouldn’t most libertarians be inclined to question the government’s wisdom in its requirement of so many vaccines?  Chicken pox, among them?  Especially when we know that another fully advanced Western European society takes the absolute opposite position and that good doctors there agree with only three of the vaccines on the ever-expanding list here?

Both the Knoxville News article and Reynolds’ piece appeal to the greater good, without appreciating the cost to certain individuals.

“Public health officials argue that getting children vaccinated is for a greater good because it protects those who can’t be vaccinated – young babies, people with immune-system problems and children undergoing chemotherapy, to name some – as well as the 5 percent to 15 percent of the population for whom the vaccines don’t work.”

“But when people decide to forgo vaccination, they threaten the entire system. They increase their own risk and the risk of those in the community, including babies too young to be vaccinated and people with immune systems impaired by disease or chemotherapy.”

I do not mean to be callous, and I certainly don’t want to tempt fate, but knowing that I breastfeed my children well into toddler hood and thereby confer extended immunity on them and based on the excellent lifelong good health of most everyone in both of our families, I do hesitate to put my children at risk for, in my mind, still to be disproved ailments associated with vaccines.  From that vantage point, I consider the possible side effects of vaccines more worrisome than the diseases against which they inoculate, at least in the case of chicken pox, whooping cough, measles, and hepatitis B.  In this instance, I definitely doubt the wisdom of government.