Interview 28
Brief Outline: For DTaP/IPV/Hib' Followed recommendations of health professionals. For MMR' Talked to friends, her father who is a doctor, family friends who were doctors, and alternative practitioners. Gathered some information from the media. Talked to their GP about her daughter's egg allergy.
Background: At time of interview' married, one daughter, aged 3 years who has an egg allergy. Parent's occupation' Mother- Bookshop owner/Teacher, Father- Floor Layer. Ethnic background' White-British.
More about me...
Believed the evidence wasn't strong enough to prove a causal link between MMR and autism.
Believed the evidence wasn't strong enough to prove a causal link between MMR and autism.
There was evidence that single vaccines especially as offered by private clinics might not be a...
There was evidence that single vaccines especially as offered by private clinics might not be a...
Because there's always people who are willing to exploit it in that degree. And equally there were articles about how, you know, having single jabs didn't necessarily provide the protection that the children needed, and, you know, there were, it wasn't conclusive that, that was going to be a kind of good way forward. And I didn't, I, it sort of wasn't, in a way wasn't really the issue for me. The issue was whether it was safe or not safe. And I just wanted to, you know, sort of make sure that I was fully reassured that I felt that it was statistically going to be, you know, overwhelmingly okay at the end of it, although you can never rule anything out altogether. But I mean all of life and you know, health is, is, you know, kind of best-fit scenario. So you just have to kind of take what you can with it.
She talked to a lot of people and gathered a lot of information before making a decision to give...
She talked to a lot of people and gathered a lot of information before making a decision to give...
So it was a kind of, you know, it was a really, really big issue. I then basically read everything I could get my hands on and spoke to anybody who could possibly bear to have another conversation about immunisation with me. And in the end I didn't feel that the evidence or the research against it at the time was strong enough to warrant me not doing it. And I, you know, I then thought about having them all done individually, and just thought, 'Actually, I know I'll end up doing half and not doing the other half, and then I might as well not have started in the first place'. So we decided just to go for it and I was holding my breath and praying that it was all going to be all right.
She talked to family friends who were doctors about their decisions for their own children or...
She talked to family friends who were doctors about their decisions for their own children or...
But I was also aware that they had a government slant, that the government was very much pushing for it. And therefore I wanted to talk to them as a friend, on a friendly basis as to what they would do with their own children rather than just what the line was from the government. And fortunately there were a lot around that were saying, 'We'll absolutely immunise, and the MMR's fine and it to our knowledge is safe'.
Wanted statistical information on the chances of getting a reaction to the vaccine as detailed by...
Wanted statistical information on the chances of getting a reaction to the vaccine as detailed by...
So you just got this massive panic without any, you know, any sort of real hard evidence one way or the other. Because you can't disprove something either until it's been, been looked into. And I think it was that whole fear of possibility without kind of any, any concrete evidence. And you really just wanted someone to sit down and say, 'All right, there's...' you know, either, you know, 'There's 100 per cent chance that there's no link whatsoever' or, 'There is a link but it's a 98 per cent chance that you know, that they'll be fine and a 2 per cent chance they'll develop autism'. And, you know, '70 per cent chance that if they don't have a vaccination they'll get German measles'. So you could at least weigh up what the, you know, what your odds were to make a decision. But there was just nothing there at all. And I think that's what was most worrying. Because if you're, if you're presented with, basically with enough facts to be able to make a decision on, you at least feel that you've done it in a kind of best-chance scenario way. Whereas you just felt you were kind of, either way you were, you know, as I, I said at the beginning, about to endanger your child's life.
So the questions really were just based around, 'If there is a link, how high, you know, what chance is there? How many children have been vaccinated entirely safely as opposed to any possible children that may have developed effects, side effects afterwards?' I think it was based more around that, trying to establish some kind of reassurance that statistically it was likely to be fine, and not have any problems with it.
More information should be given about the reasons that lie behind the changes that have been...
More information should be given about the reasons that lie behind the changes that have been...
And it's worth kind of, you know, making that point, not in a kind of bullying way, but just that realistically statistically this is the reality of the situation here. And the situation if you don't, you know, if a certain percentage don't have it done, that, you know, that there are, there is a reason why. It's not kind of done, done to annoy people, which, you know, the press around, it's been so bad lately that it's just kind of just like the government saying, 'You've got to have this done' and, and, you know, creating a system which is in GPs' surgeries that will basically make it impossible for people not to do it. Whereas I think if you just said to people on a reasonable basis, 'This is why it's being done'. And I don't remember ever reading anything that just went through kind of what the steps were leading to them doing the triple jab, and why they, you know, they made those decisions and what the implications were for it.
It is better to give a professional opinion and explain on what evidence the opinion has been...
It is better to give a professional opinion and explain on what evidence the opinion has been...
And although I know that it's very difficult in a, in a professional thing, there's a limit to how much you're allowed to say, as a parent all you want to know is that your child's going to be all right. And so it, it's not reassuring to know what the government line is. It is reassuring to know that ultimately your doctor as a professional feels that your child's going, on an overwhelming basis of evidence, is going to be fine at the end of it. And it may be that they're the same thing, but you want to have it from their personal opinion rather than from a kind of government line, that someone is going to take responsibility at the end of the day for what happens. And I think, not in that you'd want to sue them or, just that your child's, you know, basically all you want to know is that your child is going to be okay. So anything that reassures you about that is probably the best way forward.