Yesterday the opinion of the parents of the child affected by diphtheria was made public regarding what they are living, in the mouth of the Secretary of Public Health, Antoni Mateu, who said that "parents are shattered and feel cheated". Deceived by the information of the anti-vaccine groups that in such a case are able to go to the forefront to continue recommending that we not vaccinate our children.
I do not know very well what information they received in their day, if someone told them that it was worse to vaccinate than to run the risk of catching an important disease, but the punishment is being the worst possible, and for touching us closely (it seems that when it happens in another country, there is nothing to do here) perhaps we should begin to consider the possibility of vaccines being mandatory. Mandatory? Yes, like that of dog rage.
The rabies vaccine in dogs
Rabies is a disease that affects dogs that can be transmitted to humans, in whom it is dangerous because it is lethal in a high percentage of infections. Come on, it is dangerous for a dog to have rabies because then he can spread it to one or more people who will have a hard time (the symptoms are terrible) and will probably die.
The contagion occurs when an animal with rabies bites another animal or person, so it is really difficult for an epidemic, but since it is so lethal, vaccination is mandatory in many countries and, in Spain, in many autonomous communities. Now the question: If I don't let my dog approach other dogs and therefore none can bite him, why they force me to vaccinate him of rage? Because of what has been said, because it is a dangerous virus.
Many viruses and bacteria for which there is a vaccine are dangerous
And for sample, the case of diphtheria of the child of Olot, hopefully saved, but that is serious. Between 1955 and 1962, when many people had already been vaccinated, an average of 195 people died each year of diphtheria, 357.5 people of tetanus and 198.5 of whooping cough. Thanks to vaccines, these figures have fallen greatly, especially in the case of diphtheria, which was completely controlled in 1987.
The benefits of vaccines in disease control are so indisputable and the medicine was so paternalistic at the time (everyone did what the doctor said without questioning, even when they didn't know what he was talking about) that there was no need for mandatory. Everyone got vaccinated because the doctor said it and thanks to that we all enjoy an enviable life expectancy (and thanks to hygiene and better nutrition than today, unfortunately, it is getting worse).
However, over the years, with greater access to information and giving people autonomy to make their decisions (in this we have progressed), not being mandatory vaccines, the possibility of not vaccinating was opened. Only the spark that lit the fuse was missing, and Wakefield lit it when a study was invented that said the triple viral vaccine caused autism.
The anti-vaccine movement began to grow and in many parts of the world vaccine coverage has fallen to such an extent that they are at risk of suffering outbreaks and epidemics (in fact, they are already suffering).
In case of epidemic, the law allows mandatory
Well, in case of epidemic or risk that there is, the law contemplates mandatory vaccination. Already in 2010 we saw how a judge forced 35 children in Granada to be vaccinated for measles because of the risk of the virus spreading.
Then one wonders, if in case of an epidemic vaccines can be mandatory, Why are they not before the epidemic? Should we wait for cases of infection? Because this is like when a crossing is so poorly marked that cars do not stop braking and taking small blows. One thinks why they don't signal it well, are they going to wait for something serious to happen? And on many occasions it is like that, until there is no serious accident, they do not put the traffic light.
Well, this is what I mean. Should we wait for a child, two or ten to take a disease to force others to get vaccinated? Why not vaccinate them all and so you avoid those few cases and the subsequent obligation, which is nothing more than an emergency measure? That way you don't have to run and so those few children won't suffer a disease that can be dangerous.
But where is the freedom of a person to receive a medication or not?
If I am sick and a medication can cure me, it is I who decides whether to take it or not. That is to say, If I don't want to, I don't take it. No one can force me to drink something I don't want. I am in my full right, even if not taking it puts my life at risk. In the same way, I can decide not to operate, I can decide to leave the hospital when I feel like it, even if it's dusty, etc.
Where then is the freedom to take a medication or not, if we are forced to receive "vaccines" that have possible adverse effects? Well, here is the crux of the matter and that is why, to date, they are not mandatory and that is why I do not think they will ever be.
But I want to put another card on the table. My right not to get vaccinated is clear, but what about the children? Because they also have the right not to get vaccinated and the right to get vaccinated. Since vaccines are a method of disease control and, in reality, a drug that when it comes to weighing the risk and benefit has proven to be effective, Where is the right of a child to be vaccinated, to be protected from major illnesses, if his parents refuse to do so?
A child cannot say yes, nor can he say no. You are not qualified to make that decision. His parents may decide to vaccinate him and may decide not to vaccinate him, and any of the decisions may be a problem for the child tomorrow. Come on, the boy can turn 18 and say to his parents "Why the hell did you vaccinate me?" or "Why the hell didn't you vaccinate me?" It's like dogs, at a different level, of course, but they can't say yes or no either. We vaccinate them and that's it.
Unable then to decide the children for their own health, and given the possibility that something like what happened in Olot happen, that the parents decided based on information that they now reject and feel cheated, Vaccines should be, in my view, mandatory until age 18, when the child becomes a man, the girl woman, and can then begin to decide whether or not to take a medicine and whether or not to receive a vaccine. Until then, the decision should not be at the expense of parents receiving truthful or falsified information.
All mandatory vaccines?
No, I don't think they should all be, just as not all vaccines for dogs are, but yes those for more lethal diseases, or those that spread more quickly. Perhaps only systematic ones should be (those that parents must pay cannot be, simply for that reason, because not all parents can afford them).
This obviously must be reassessed based on risk and benefit. In general, the benefit is always greater than the risk, but given the obligatory nature, the reasons for vaccinating a community systematically must be explained on the basis of an irrefutable common benefit. That is why there may be some relatively dispensable vaccine that can be left as it is now, as a recommendation, but optional (knowing that in the same way that it happens now, most will be vaccinated equally)
But, and the possible side effects?
The possible side effects are the same as now that most parents vaccinate. In case of mandatory someone can say that "already, but I would not have put it" and rightly so, but this is the same thing that can be said when, in an epidemic situation, a judge decides that everyone should get vaccinated
The fact is that it is more than proven that between the perspective that no one is vaccinated and that everyone is vaccinated, morbidity and mortality will be much lower in the second assumption. That is, the remedy is better than the disease, it is better to run the risk of side effects of vaccines, in most mild cases, than to run the risk of catching a preventable disease, where the consequences can be fatal ( or survive but stay with sequels for life).
In addition, universal vaccination is the only way to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, even if they want to: babies who are not yet of age to receive according to which vaccines (up to 2 months do not receive the first tetanus and diphtheria, for example, and up to 12 months do not receive measles, mumps and rubella) , those who have a chronic disease that contraindicates the vaccine or those who have sensitivity to some component of a vaccine.
And the pharmaceuticals rubbing their hands, right?
In recent days, because of my speech provaccines I have received more than one accusation of being in some way conspired with the pharmaceutical companies. Nothing is further from reality. I am a nurse, I am a health agent and, as such, I try to find what is best for everyone and to contrast it with what science tells us.
Of course, the pharmacists make money with the vaccines, behind each one of them there is a huge amount of money and means to research and develop the vaccines, and all this trying to make them effective and not harmful. Normal that they want to make money, is their business.
However, Has anyone wondered how much money they would earn if vaccines did not exist? Because a vaccine costs between 30 and 60 euros, but the treatment of what disease costs thousands of euros. Pharmacists would do better if we didn't get vaccinated and so they could offer their treatments for outbreaks and epidemics. He expense would be awesome, because each affected child or adult would receive treatment for several days or weeks. There, the pharmaceutical companies would rub their hands, if only they thought about money, of course.
Then add the income, professionals, maternity or paternity leave, ... The expense is immense. Come on, our health system could not support it. Olot's child has been in the ICU for several days, with a treatment that had to come from another country and in serious condition. Imagine that a second case is derived from that case, another child suffering from the disease, and perhaps a third, and may extend to 50 or 60 people. And the same in other cities of the country, and the same with other viruses, because then there would be a case of measles that would spread to friends and colleagues, family members, and another outbreak in another place in the country, and then another ... come on, as happened a few decades ago, all because everyone decided to stop vaccinating their children. And in such an emergency situation, the side effects of the medications would give exactly the same because the goal would be to save life and parents would cling to any burning nail. They would even pay what it took to get these treatments.
Do not, the vaccine is still better than the treatment because it is cheaper and because, being preventive, the pharmaceutical companies are obliged to always achieve the best effectiveness with the least damage, and above at a lower price because they are applied in many less occasions than a treatment.
Photos | iStock
In Babies and more | Why being in favor of childhood vaccines, Why not vaccinating children puts everyone's health at risk, Six misconceptions about vaccines
