eNeMeE posted:Have your mom get the vaccine without telling your sister. It's not like it leaves a mark or anything. First off, going by antivaxxers behavior in the past I could very well see his sister kicking their mom out over that. Second it's really bad to just have her go behind her daughter's back like that, her fears might be based on a bunch of fear mongering baloney but that does not mean you can just ignore them and act like they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Vaccine you are family
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:First off, going by antivaxxers behavior in the past I could very well see his sister kicking their mom out over that. Haha this rings incredibly true. I appreciate all the responses. I guess we'll just have to make a decision on my mom visiting. The rest of the family had no problem getting a booster if they needed it, but my goodness is the anti-vaxx dogma strong. Ffs
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Fireside Nut posted:I appreciate all the responses. I guess we'll just have to make a decision on my mom visiting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It's pretty simple: I don't want you putting my child at risk. You don't get your booster, you don't visit until the kid has a stable immune system. My sister in law had this rule when her first kid was born, so my wife and I got our boosters around a month before the due date and that was that. Look, it's a perfectly acceptable rule to have in place. I think it's a great idea. Stick to your guns and have you mother get the shot in secret if she has to. How do you think your mother would feel if your kid got sick, wondering if she were the carrier?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Second it's really bad to just have her go behind her daughter's back like that, her fears might be based on a bunch of fear mongering baloney but that does not mean you can just ignore them and act like they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:11
|
|
Fireside Nut posted:Thank you for the response. I mean, are we being unrealistic or alarmist by asking folks to be current on their TDaP before visiting the baby in the first few months? Or is the chance so low that my mom could likely visit without having that be a concern? Having not been a parent before I simply don't have a good feel for this and have never given it much thought until now. Talk with your pediatrician about the practical risks vs total. It's highly unlikely your mom would be carrying the bacteria for whooping cough. But, you also don't want to put your child at risk and are totally justified in taking a stand and saying "no seeing the baby until vaccinated or until baby's immune system is better developed."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
On one hand, it's maybe over-cautious. But at least it's based on something that actually could happen, unlike the vast majority of antivax nonsense, so by those standards it's incredibly reasonable and prudent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:18
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Why not? Because those fears exist and people act on their fears even if the source of said fears is an illusion. It's like saying that it should be ok to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you can't just say that it's ok to do something like that because the most rational response to a fire is to exit in a calm and orderly fashion. Consider, if the mother is stuck depending on her daughter for shelter is it wise for her to go behind her daughter's back and do something that might very well land her on the street just so that she can see her grandchild sooner? I'm not saying that this is fair or just, but you have to take people's opinions into account even if they are irrational, ignoring them only blinds you to the consequences of both your own and their actions.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
The mom is potentially in danger herself being in a house with unvaccinated kids, depending on her age and other risk factors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Because those fears exist and people act on their fears even if the source of said fears is an illusion. It's like saying that it should be ok to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you can't just say that it's ok to do something like that because the most rational response to a fire is to exit in a calm and orderly fashion. The opinion is being taken into account - we're suggesting that she get necessary medical care in private rather than being open about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:10
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The opinion is being taken into account - we're suggesting that she get necessary medical care in private rather than being open about it. So I would assume that the sister knows about the restriction on being able to see the baby, if the mom goes then it would be pretty obvious that she got the booster, yes? I mean, I suppose they could try to keep the whole trip a secret but that seems pretty hard to me. I guess she could just get the booster anyway since it's a good thing regardless but that does not really solve the problem with her wanting to see the baby.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
She could pretend she stepped on a rusty nail and be like "woops! needed to get a tdap booster anyway!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Alterian posted:She could pretend she stepped on a rusty nail and be like "woops! needed to get a tdap booster anyway!" Same problem, other sister will still be terrified of the mom carrying infectous mercury toxins or whatever and angry that mom didn't use the natural, healthier homeopathic/crystal/herbal/do nothing cure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:So I would assume that the sister knows about the restriction on being able to see the baby, if the mom goes then it would be pretty obvious that she got the booster, yes? I mean, I suppose they could try to keep the whole trip a secret but that seems pretty hard to me. I guess she could just get the booster anyway since it's a good thing regardless but that does not really solve the problem with her wanting to see the baby. Yeah dude, I guess it is better that a grandmother put her new grand kid at risk and tolerate harmful irrationality rather than try to keep everyone safe and healthy. No, it's not that loving hard to go and visit on the sly. Come on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:00
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yeah dude, I guess it is better that a grandmother put her new grand kid at risk and tolerate harmful irrationality rather than try to keep everyone safe and healthy. Really? This sort of thing gets out very easily within families. Also I'm of the opinion that the mom ought to wait to see the baby, at least with the current situation. At the very least I think that lying to ones family is a bad idea, even if they are irrational.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
"We decided that our baby's grandmother would be the only exception to our "must be vaccinated" rule, because it's the baby's motherfucking grandmother" There, that wasn't so hard
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Really? This sort of thing gets out very easily within families. Also I'm of the opinion that the mom ought to wait to see the baby, at least with the current situation. At the very least I think that lying to ones family is a bad idea, even if they are irrational. You think lying is the immoral thing here, rather than socially denying one's mother the ability to receive proper healthcare? Adults keep poo poo from other members of their family all the loving time - do you call up your parents and siblings and cousins and give them an itemized list of everything you'd done in the past day. Its really easy to tell folks, "don't say Grandma was here, she got a shot but doesn't want to start a fight with the crazy sister" and then everyone will nod their heads and shut the gently caress up. It's not that hard. QuarkJets posted:"We decided that our baby's grandmother would be the only exception to our "must be vaccinated" rule, because it's the baby's motherfucking grandmother" That doesn't make much sense, given that mom lives in a household full of unvaccinated children. Of anyone else in the family she's likely the biggest risk of anyone out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Typhoid grammy
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:42
|
|
Grandma had cancer but we told her if she got chemo instead of taking cannabis oil she was out on the street.  
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That doesn't make much sense, given that mom lives in a household full of unvaccinated children. Of anyone else in the family she's likely the biggest risk of anyone out there. That was a possible excuse to allow grandma to visit the kid after getting a booster without tipping off the crazy sister.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:45
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You think lying is the immoral thing here, rather than socially denying one's mother the ability to receive proper healthcare? Adults keep poo poo from other members of their family all the loving time - do you call up your parents and siblings and cousins and give them an itemized list of everything you'd done in the past day. Its really easy to tell folks, "don't say Grandma was here, she got a shot but doesn't want to start a fight with the crazy sister" and then everyone will nod their heads and shut the gently caress up. It's not that hard. Where, pray tell, did I ever say that it was morally better for the grandmother to go without healthcare? I just think that she would be better off with a roof over her head even if that means having to wait to see the baby. I think that if she went behind the daughter's back, got the shot and then her daughter found out that there would be more fallout than other options.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Where, pray tell, did I ever say that it was morally better for the grandmother to go without healthcare? I just think that she would be better off with a roof over her head even if that means having to wait to see the baby. I think that if she went behind the daughter's back, got the shot and then her daughter found out that there would be more fallout than other options. Your odd concern over the morality of lying to a member of the family who's acting in bad faith over the health of the grandmother. Also, I already pointed out how lovely it's going to be for the grandmother if the new grandkid gets sick. Even if they can't directly show that the disease was passed from grandmother to grandchild, she's going to feel like poo poo thinking there's a possibility that her grandkid is suffering because of her not getting a shot. I've seen this sort of thing at work after industrial accidents and it's a hosed up time for everyone. If she gets the shot, she doesn't have to worry about this possibility either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:01
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Your odd concern over the morality of lying to a member of the family who's acting in bad faith over the health of the grandmother. Please read what I post instead of what you think you read. I said "bad idea" not "is wrong" or "is morally wrong", my objection is motivated by the opinion that it's ever so slightly better to go without a booster than to be homeless, a strange opinion I know, but not all of us are as rational as you.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Screw their feelings. They're putting children at risk who cannot make the choice for themselves. Hell, in my opinion you'd be justified in forcing them to get their children vaccinated too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
That Works posted:Grandma had cancer but we told her if she got chemo instead of taking cannabis oil she was out on the street. Solkanar512 posted:Your odd concern over the morality of lying to a member of the family who's acting in bad faith over the health of the grandmother. e: A lovely Reporter posted:Screw their feelings. They're putting children at risk who cannot make the choice for themselves. Hell, in my opinion you'd be justified in forcing them to get their children vaccinated too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:20
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:Screw their feelings. They're putting children at risk who cannot make the choice for themselves. Hell, in my opinion you'd be justified in forcing them to get their children vaccinated too. I think one would be justified forcing the children to be vaccinated too, but the law disagrees. This isn't about feelings, it's about the actions that stem from them.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I'm glad I live in a country where only the very rich can afford to not vaccinate their children (because the fines will start adding up real quick after a year or so)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:Screw their feelings. They're putting children at risk who cannot make the choice for themselves. AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think one would be justified forcing the children to be vaccinated too, but the law disagrees. This isn't about feelings, it's about the actions that stem from them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
We can and should prevent parents from doing things that are harmful to their kids, though. Look at all the countries that have quite rightly banned all corporal punishment -- as it turns out, they aren't falling apart and parents aren't going to jail on a regular basis. We need to move away from the idea that children are the property of their parents, to do with what they will. Part of raising another human being is realizing that it comes with attendant obligations to the child, and to society as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You realize that this describes a whole lot of things that parents do in the normal course of parenting, yes? that doesn't make doing those things not bad though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:We decided that giving blood to a JW kid was okay regardless of the parents' wishes, I can't understand why we don't with some basic vaccines. Lack of a political will to do so. I hope that if Clinton wins and we get the ACA fleshed out better that included free and mandatory(barring medical exceptions) vaccination for all children in the US, full stop. You don't want Sunflower Snowchild to get vaccinated because of your idiotic hipster/hippie/religious beliefs? Too bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Lack of a political will to do so. I hope that if Clinton wins and we get the ACA fleshed out better that included free and mandatory(barring medical exceptions) vaccination for all children in the US, full stop. You know, even though I voted for Sanders in the primary, one upside to Clinton is that she lacks a lot of the really dumb pseudo-scientific baggage that Sanders (and to a much greater extent Jill Stein) has. I trust her more to potentially do something on this front than I would Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Agreed, but until we decide that that's okay, you'll have situations like the above. We decided that giving blood to a JW kid was okay regardless of the parents' wishes, I can't understand why we don't with some basic vaccines. There is literally supreme court precedent that it is ok to do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts There's just not really any states that are willing to pony up the cash to engage in a paid-for mandatory vaccination program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't really handwave the implications of removing the right for parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their child though. Look, I'm not going to waste my time pretending that this is in good faith. So you're cool with letting parents starve their children, leave them outside in the cold, deny them blood transfusions and other necessary medical care? Why do you implicitly ignore the implications of parents choosing, against medical advice, to deny their own children necessary and preventative medical care? I can't imagine that you're also fine with parents beating the poo poo out of their kids to the point of being maimed, so why would you be ok with them being maimed by an easily preventable disease? What do you say to the young women out there who will inevitably get cervical cancer because their parents refused them a vaccination?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:that doesn't make doing those things not bad though? Solkanar512 posted:So you're cool with letting parents starve their children, leave them outside in the cold, deny them blood transfusions and other necessary medical care? Why do you implicitly ignore the implications of parents choosing, against medical advice, to deny their own children necessary and preventative medical care? I can't imagine that you're also fine with parents beating the poo poo out of their kids to the point of being maimed, so why would you be ok with them being maimed by an easily preventable disease? Freedom means that people have the right to make decisions you disagree with based on moral frameworks you disagree with. I'm generally in favor of vaccination, but frankly the only moral way to talk about making it mandatory is as an exigent exception to normal questions of parental consent and bodily integrity. This whole "well, they are savages whose beliefs are based on superstitious nonsense, whereas I am Very Smart and listen to the experts, so gently caress them" tone is some repugnant poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Are you in favor of making it illegal to buy your kid a skateboard, or allowing them to swim in the ocean, or walk home from school by themselves? You do realise that vaccination is not just about the health of an individual, but also about herd immunity, right? When an idiot anti-vaxxer “makes decisions i disagree with based on moral frameworks i disagree with", they aren't just endangering their child, but many people who come into contact with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:You do realise that vaccination is not just about the health of an individual, but also about herd immunity, right? When an idiot anti-vaxxer “makes decisions i disagree with based on moral frameworks i disagree with", they aren't just endangering their child, but many people who come into contact with them. Yeah, "we're going to non-consensually inject things into your body, not to save your life in the immediate circumstance, but to theoretically decrease the health risks of some other people you may come into contact with later" is even more morally fraught than transfusing someone against their will while they're bleeding to death in front of you. If there was a drug that demonstrably reduced violent tendencies and criminal behavior by 10% later in life if regularly administered to a child, but had a one-in-a-hundred-thousand chance of serious side effects, would you be in favor of making it mandatory?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Your example is extreme and has no bearing on this case. Not vaccinating a child is negligence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
With not vaccinating you are saying "my beliefs matter more than the health of my children and others" - a thing that borders on criminal. Whatever you said- some needlessly cruel parable both to the hypothetical child and to anyone reading it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:45
|
|