Reading this article from this week’s New York Times, I couldn’t help but recall our discussion today about different models of science literacy.
The article discusses the recent increase in parents’ refusal to vaccinate their infants. The article cites these statistics as “disturbing,” and while on the surface they are, an examination of the reasons behind parents’ objection left me to question which side was correct.
While vaccinations have proven effective in preventing certain diseases, evidence regarding potential risks has surfaced. According to one parent, “When I began to read about vaccines and how they work,” she said, “I saw medical studies, not given to use by the mainstream media, connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma and immunology.” Later on, autism was mentioned as another potential side effect.
As new parents trying to do the best for their children, this leaves many in a quandary. While the scientific community is telling parents that their fears are invalid and telling them the facts scientists think they should know, they are not taking into account lay knowledge (for example, family histories of asthma, immunology problems, or autism). If I were a parent who knew my child might be at a greater risk for developing serious health problems, I’m not sure I would be so trusting in the scientific community.
In a case like this, I think relying on a more contextual knowledge of science literacy would be advantageous. In this way, fears can be quelled and the true cost-benefit analysis can be assessed.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As someone who hopes to one day become an epidemiologist, I could not help but share in the feelings of “disturbance” of the increasing number of these so-called “exemptions” in states as populous as California. Not receiving a vaccine not only puts yourself at risk, but also the millions of people you come into contact with, both directly and indirectly, every day. I think that there was somewhat of a failure on the doctor’s part to relay the risk involved in choosing not to receive a vaccine for both that child and those whom that child comes into contact with. Furthermore, parent’s need to take into account the fact that doctor’s, immunologists, epidemiologists, and virologists, are much more educated in the field of virology and vaccination, and that although effects of vaccines on the development of autism and other neurological disorders have not been proven, the effects of vaccines on disease prevention, particularly in the case of measles, have been proven—that is, proven to work.
I think this is an issue of doctor-patient relationship. Parents read things online, take it as fact, and do not take the recommendations of the doctors anymore. Also, many who are refusing to vaccinate their children based on the danger are also well-off and well-educated. Obviously, they have the access to the internet and the sites that oppose vaccinations. I understand that some children may enter the world with "poor" family health histories, but at this point the evidence against vaccinations is very shaky. I agree with Lindsay: the number of children not getting vaccinated is only putting other people at risk.
Although I agree with Lindsay and Anna that the risk of not getting vaccinated is harmful to both yourself and those around you, I can understand why some parents are skeptical. If a parent has their own child's health as a number one priority and they have read about negative side effects of a vaccine, it seems reasonable to me that they would not want to have their child vaccinated. I think doctors should spend more time communicating with their patients about why the information found online (saying vaccines may not be safe) is not credible, while there is good evidence about the benefits of vaccines. For example, have any of these patients found evidence from peer reviewed original studies? Or are they from an unreliable source? If they are from a reliable source, I think it seems a good reason to at least be skeptical (despite the fact that I believe everyone should be vaccinated).
I always knew that some children's parents opted not to get them vaccinated, but this article brings to light how serious of an issue this is. People who refuse to vaccinate their child are working against what vaccines are trying to do. Just because they have never seen the disease before they may assume it isn't as serious as it really is. The more people who don't vaccinate, the larger the chance of these disease rates going back up.
Of couse there are risks with any medical procedure, but one needs to take a close look at what is more likely: your child contracting an potentially serious infectious disease by not being vaccinated, or a vaccine bringing out an underlying health problem.
If your parents had you vaccinated as an infant or small child, you are probably more prone to defend vaccinations, and seek out information to back your point of view. Truth be told, the issue of child vaccinations does not carry the majority of support among doctors, as say, global warming does among scientists. In addition, while a respectable newspaper, the New York Times is not a scholarly resource relied on by doctors.
My mother chose to forgo many of the “required” vaccinations for my two younger siblings and myself. This is not because my mother is illiterate, a hippy, or part of any group that frowns on conventional medical practices. In fact, my mother made this decision after researching this matter thoroughly, with the help of my father, and the advice of several doctors. It should be noted that both my parents have advanced graduate degrees, and are probably as science literate as the average American, if not more so.
As I have become older, my parent’s have supported my decision to get certain vaccinations (many have been required when traveling out of the country). My parents are not hardheaded illiterates, they simply did what they thought was best, and did not capitulate to mainstream thought. Although my mother did not have me vaccinated against many of these rampant illnesses, I would disagree with Dr. Sawyer in the article, who states that “immunizations are the cornerstone of public health.” What about the rampant obesity in our society due to poor eating habits? Cancer caused by smoking? While immunizations are certainly an interesting issue to discuss, I would say it is more of a fringe issue in the public health issues within the United States.
Post a Comment