51 days left. That would be only three weeks, if weeks were 17 days long.
But anyway.
Another fortnight, another trip to the midwife. Before she cut our visit short to attend to her third home birth in two days (and it's not even a full moon!), we got on the topic of vaccinations.
It's hard to find many people who are not in either the "Stick my child with everything you got" camp or the "Hell no, you're not giving my kid an autism cocktail" camp.
Here's the thing: both extremes are pretty shitty options, but I find a little critical thought can go a long way. On the one hand, the ability to prevent otherwise deadly childhood diseases is, along with the invention of the microscope and the discovery of penicillin, one of the greatest hallmarks of Western medical science. On the other hand, vaccines work by transmiting a small dose of the disease, so that the immune system can create its own defenses. This puts enormous stress on the under-developed immune system of a days-old or weeks-old infant, potentially elevating the risk of developmental and immune disorders.
So it all comes down to a game of risk assessment: Does the risk incurred by potential exposure to disease outweigh that posed by potential additional health problems down the road?
What, you want me to give you an answer?
I can tell you this much: I am a big fan of the Western tradition of science and medicine, but every day I am less and less enamored by those who purport to stand on the shoulders of Pasteur, Curie, and Salk.
Did you know that they give a Hepatitis-B vaccine to newborns? TO NEWBORNS? Where, pray tell, is my little boy going to be picking up a sexually-transmitted disease? What kind of monster does the CDC think I am? Of course I'll make sure he gets vaccinated for it, but why exactly shouldn't it wait until high school? After all, he'll need a booster after his immunity to the disease degrades anyway.
Hepatitis-B is an excellent example of epidemiology getting in the way of personal medical care. Of course a baby doesn't need the vaccine. That is not the issue. Newborns get it because it is important that the population as a whole is universally vaccinated, and newborns have the most consistent medical visits of any segment of the population. While I understand that perspective epidemiologically, doctors are not in the business of public health. They are in the business of treating individuals according to what will "do no harm" to the individual, and I fear that line gets crossed more often than necessary or appropriate, especially during and after pregnancy.
And don't even get me started on the chicken pox vaccine.
IT'S CHICKEN POX, PEOPLE.
We're not talking about meningitis or polio here. You get a week off school, a lot of oatmeal baths, and a few pock marks where you just couldn't resist scratching. Not a big deal. Seriously. Furthermore, widespread immunization will likely only make chicken pox worse (in the epidemiological sense) because it will slow the rate of transmission in the population, meaning that those without the vaccine as infants may not get infected until adulthood, when the effects of the disease are far, far more serious.
So what are d.w. and I going to do? Why, we'll do what is best for the hatchling, of course.
So what's your perspective? Curious minds and all that, you know.