|
POV... this wont hurt a bit
by barbara sumner burstyn
This Won't Hurt a Bit - When it comes to immunization,
who do we believe?
British leader Tony Blair recently re-ignited an old battle by
refusing to say if his young son Leo had been immunized.
Blair's reluctance to reveal his child's immunity status was
seen as adding weight to growing fears that immunization, when
looked at through the wrong end of the telescope, may end up being
more harmful than many of the illnesses now being controlled by
it.
In editorials across Britain parents were extolled to put aside
fear mongering and accept the weigh t of scientific evidence that
proclaims immunization as safe. And the underlying message is
always the same. Non-immunizing parents are placing our entire
society at risk.
So while it seems fitting that as a parent Mr. Blair has likely
suffered the same agonizing decision as other parents here's my
confession. All four of my children are un-immunized.
A recent American study has labelled parents like me 'trend or
fad parents'.
We're the ones susceptible to any new development that comes
along, especially developments that occur outside the traditional
medical framework.
My parent's generation was spared these types of decisions. They
listened to their doctors and they believed them; they vaccinated,
tonsillectomied and fluoridated with gay abandon. And they were
secure in the knowledge that their doctor knew best.
But our generation has lost its blind faith and the reason's
simple enough. If something goes wrong; if your child becomes
autistic, dies from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or develops
a chronic illness like Crohn's Disease, or god forbid , Mad Cow
disease (from vaccines used to prevent influenzas, pneumonia and
meningitis) following immunization the medical establishment,
the marketing companies that manufacture pharmaceuticals or the
endorsing governments won't take the blame.
Because it's a no-fault world.
Except if you're a parent. Then of course you're the one who's
always at fault. 'I blame the parents.'
You hear that statement all the time, either spoken or implied.
And when others aren't blaming the parents the parents are blaming
themselves.
Because with parenting you can't hide in layers of bureaucracy,
in expensive legal diversions or in a public relations buffer
zone.
Parenting is like a game of tag and you're always 'it'.
So perhaps declining vaccination rates, in the UK and in New
Zealand (only two-thirds of New Zealand are children immunized
and 12.5 percent of parents are unconvinced that it's safe) is
another example of our increasing lack of trust in governments,
in companies and institutions that never have to face the reality
of personal consequence in a meaningful way.
Certainly pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in
promoting full immunization. They have their shareholders to consider.
And governments too.
To them immunization is not a personal mat ter but a public health
issue, a cost-effective way of disguising the true level of poverty
in society.
In New Zealand where one in every 100 Maori and Pacific Island
children under five can expect to catch meningococcal disease,
Auckland researchers this month acknowledged that the disease
is s trongly linked to poverty, with the risks increasing with
overcrowding. Illogically public health specialists reasoned that
an effective vaccine was the answer.
So rather than resolving the issues of poverty the Government
is contracting an international vaccine maker and embarking on
expensive trails to create a new vaccine.
And that's a lot of vested interest in successful vaccine creation.
But as compromised by corporate agendas, as researchers, doctors
and public health officials are, the weight of evidence to support
the role of immunization in a range of chronic illness, retardation
and cot death is compelling.
Dr Robert Mendelssohn an American doctor and best selling author
believes that nearly 10,000 child deaths each year are related
to one or more vaccines that are routinely given to children.
"Imagine," says Dr William C Douglas, twice honoured as America's
Doctor of the Year, "the economic and political import of discovering
that immunizations are killing thousands of babies?"
So rather than being blinded by 'drummed up hysteria' and my
love for my children I'd say I sifted through all the available
information and made the best decisions I could.
I'm one of those parents who are swayed by alternatives, by the
'shrill tracts' - as one journalist recently described an anti-immunization
brochure.
I did opt for homebirth, I briefly give-up cows milk in favour
of soy and I do believe that homeopathic medicine can work even
though I know it isn't scientific.
But I'm not easily lead, a faddist, unstable or a trend parent.
I just think I'm trying to do the best I can in a world that
over-simplifies complex issues, in a world that clings to the
concept of an altruistic health care system when it is patently
obvious that corporate self-interest is deeply embedded in public
health.
And even if I am mislead or misinformed by the manufacturers
and marketers of something as routine as a child's vaccination
it will still be my fault and my responsibility when something
goes wrong.
And perhaps in the end that's the best way.
To be the opposite of the blinded parent of my parent' s generation,
to be as fully conscious, aware, and responsible as I am capable
of, every time I, as a parent, have to make a major decision.
I'm not even positive immunization is bad.
But I do know that it's not about the health of individual children
and that vested interests have more control over public policy
than governments will ever admit too.
And pharmaceutical companies with their PR campaigns and demand
for shareholder dividends most certainly do not have the health
of my child at heart.
And on this particular issue I don't think I can believe my pediatrician.
He has too many pharmaceutical company freebies around his office
and I'm beginning to wonder at which sponsored conference he acquired
his tan.
© Copyright, March 2002 Barbara
Sumner Burstyn
|
