Few subjects are as polarising as that of childhood vaccinations, as evidenced by the 250 reader comments in response to The sharp end of the vaccination debate which I wrote when non-vaccinated children were banned from a west Auckland school to contain the spread of measles.
Perennially topical, vaccinations hit the headlines again with the hospitalisation of an unvaccinated 7-year-old Auckland boy for tetanus. I hope his recovery, which evidently may take as long as twelve months, proceeds well - and I also hope his story raises awareness and perhaps makes other parents recognise the importance of having their children vaccinated.
The parents of unvaccinated children fall into two distinct camps. The first group was well represented in the comments section of my 2011 piece. These people based their decision to not vaccinate on extensive personal investigation. One gave it "very serious consideration and a great deal of research" while another claimed to have "spent countless hours reviewing a very complicated issue." Yet another devoted "several months, hundreds of hours" and another "3 months of hard study."
Fuelling the perceived need for these people to embark on independent study (in which, peculiarly, the emphasis seems to be on the duration of the research rather than quality of the inputs and conclusion) is a deep suspicion of the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies. It's concern about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines that non-vaccinators often cite as the reason for their stance.
A recurring theme among these non-vaccinators seems to be that they believe themselves to be intellectually superior to those of us who have had our children vaccinated. "Most people that choose not to vaccinate have Masters degrees or higher," said one. "[S]tatistically speaking, the higher a person's level of education, the less likely they are to vaccinate," claimed another.
