The questions I raised about Public Health’s grade 6 school-based immunization program led me down an interesting path of discovery. I became much more aware of the marketing tactics aimed at securing parental consent for the use of various vaccines on healthy children. I also became aware of the lobbying efforts aimed at using state coercion when this power of persuasion fails. As parents, we must protect our parental sovereignty and the right to informed consent for medical decisions concerning our children.
Life is full of risks and uncertainty about the future. It’s impossible to prevent your child from being infected by every known pathogen out there and those yet to be discovered or synthetically created. The stories of children suffering harm or dying from infectious diseases or the vaccines meant to prevent them are equally heartbreaking. Weighing the individual risks/benefits of the numerous biological products used as a preventative measure for population health is not an easy task.
When it comes to vaccines we are told the science-based evidence speaks for itself but does it? History is replete with examples of the dire consequences that can come from a blind faith in scientific credibility and a blind obedience to scientific authority. A combined dose of politics and science once helped the eugenics movement bring in forced sterilization. Today this same combination is being used to develop public policy and legislation for mandatory vaccination and presumed consent for organ donation. If parents are going to look to science for some direction then we better also take a closer look at who’s interpreting the science for us.
There are some in the scientific and medical communities who believe universal immunization with vaccinations from cradle to grave is the best means for ridding mankind of diseases, ending poverty, or promoting world peace. These global health goals sound noble until you think about the complexity of the immune system itself, let alone trying to perfect humanity. As a parent my goal is not a global one it’s a family one; I just want to protect my child from harm.
Today the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry is one of the biggest public/private partnerships worldwide with governments and international corporations involved in vaccine research and development, marketing, purchasing, and public policymaking. Research and development efforts now include vaccines for the prevention and cure of every type of human disease and societal ill including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, obesity, anxiety, depression, smoking, alcoholism, and drug addiction. For those looking for a return on investment, science means business. My child’s health is my business and my only motive is parental love.
Under a universal health care system like we have in Canada, the government is always looking for ways of cutting health care costs. Public Health immunization programs focusing on prevention can be cheaper than individualized medical treatments. Just like it’s cheaper for Public Health to use so-called harm reduction programs to help reduce the spread of disease rather than treatment to help cure individuals of alcoholism and drug addiction. These programs may be viewed as cost-effective for governments using a population health-based approach, but my concern lies with the real not “statistical” life of my child.
The mantra of Public Health is that population health benefits outweigh the individual risks for vaccines. The theory of herd immunity is often used as a booster dose of persuasion for making parents believe that vaccinating their child results in “herd immunity” for others. We are told that by vaccinating the elderly we can protect our children, by vaccinating children we are protecting pregnant women and the immunocompromised, by vaccinating pregnant women we are protecting the unborn and by vaccinating infants we are protecting the elderly. If this constant revaccination regime doesn’t really make sense to you that’s because in both the theoretical and real-world herd immunity is lacking. It might be more believable if not for complicating factors like different strains of pathogens circulating throughout the world, the cyclic and seasonal nature of diseases, symptomless carriers, non-responders to vaccines, and protection that wanes over time. Individual immunity and disease transmission involve many different variables within the changing context of time and place. How is herd immunity defined and measured? Which pathogen are we talking about? Which vaccines? Which herd are we talking about? Are we talking about my family, community, province, country, or the world? In reality, wouldn’t all have to be vaccinated for the benefit of all?
Vaccines can’t guarantee protection from infectious diseases nor can they guarantee the prevention of transmission, they only have the potential to reduce risk not eliminate it. The theory of herd immunity uses mathematical models full of assumptions and estimates and predictions. Its most egregious assumption is treating your child’s health as a public good. A parent’s conscientious choice regarding a medical intervention for their healthy child is not a public matter; it’s a personal matter. My child’s health does not belong to the members of the society in which I live.
A national advisory committee reviews both published and unpublished data before voting on the recommendations to be adopted as standard practice into school-based immunization programs. Their opinions take into consideration the best available scientific knowledge at the time. New information is reflected in changes made to doses, schedules, vaccine strains, ingredients, and manufacturing processes. As parents, we need to continually reassess the risks/benefits of each product recommended for our children. As individuals, we don’t all carry the same risk factors for infectious diseases or biological products and therefore can’t possibly share the same benefits. Each of us is unique, our immune system is complex, and the science evolves as new information comes to light. While these expert panels can claim to be authorities on vaccines, they can’t claim to be authorities on the health of my child.
My decision to opt out of the school-based immunization program was not based on the mathematical modeling of population health and the theory of herd immunity. It was made in the best interests of my child a unique individual whose health and life are invaluable to me. My child is a person, not a number.
In the final analysis, the choices you make as to whether or not to vaccinate your healthy child and which products to use involve more than just reviewing the latest data; they involve judgment. Who’s to say where the just balance lies when the weights and measures of population health are applied? When it’s your child’s life and health hanging in the balance – you must be the judge.