Defending a parent's right to withhold vaccines when they want to

I recently read this article titled: Defending a parent's right to withhold vaccines when they want to in Philly Voice. I was pleasantly surprised to find the writer (Amy Wright Glenn) was pro-vaccine--especially since mainstream media likes to portray the debate as being strictly black and white. Considering myself a nuance of gray too, I really enjoyed the openness, sincerity, and understanding she brought to the topic of informed consent and vaccine mandates.
Here's an excerpt from the article:

All who are pro-vaccine support the existence of medical exemptions, because some children cannot be safely vaccinated. But not all who are pro-vaccine support mandatory vaccination laws that remove religious or philosophical exemptions. Award-winning pediatrician Paul Thomas, M.D., co-author of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan and father of 10 vaccinated children, argues: “It’s up to the parents—not the government or any doctor—to ultimately decide what will work best for their children.” Thomas provides medical care to over 13,000 children in his Portland, Oregon-based pediatric practice. He believes parents must be provided with the opportunity to give “true informed consent.”

Thomas’ book, co-authored with Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., has struck a chord. Since its release last August, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan has been a frequent bestseller on Amazon. Random House, which owns Ballantine (the book’s publisher), just ordered a reprint of 10,000 copies. Thomas and Margulis advocate for a measured and evidence-based approach to childhood vaccinations, comparable to vaccination schedules present in Scandinavian countries. They challenge certain aspects of the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) schedule. Assistant Professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Martha Herbert, M.D, Ph.D, refers to their book as: “A valuable, science-supported guide to optimizing your child’s health.”

Thomas and Margulis are not anti-vaccine, by any stretch, and they clearly stand for safeguarding medical freedom. Thomas states: “With vaccinations, like with every other pharmaceutical intervention, one other option we must always give patients is to opt out of the treatment. Parents know their family history and unique circumstances that government officials are not taking into consideration and that may make vaccination more risky.”

I love that her article brings awareness to not only vaccine benefit vs. risk and the right to choose, but also to the topic of vaccine schedules. I am one hundred percent for informed consent and preserving current Pennsylvania exemptions. I would love to see additional legislation protecting parents' right to choose an alternate vaccine schedule without penalty. This is for the health of our children, so making sure it is done safely, and not to the detriment of their immune systems, is paramount.

She goes on to compare two experiences she had personally with nurses in two separate pediatric offices. The first refuses her care unless she strictly adheres to the CDC vaccine schedule (mind you, she does vaccinate her child, but does so on an alternate schedule). The second, allows her to continue with her alternate schedule and when she requests an exemption for her child for school, the nurse shares her own personal experience with vaccine injury. This struck home with me, I have been turned away from several pediatric offices and several family doctors for wanting to delay vaccines and follow an alternate schedule--it was their lack of tolerance and fear-tactics that actually propelled me to research the subject deeper and deeper. Now, I can't, in good conscience, vaccinate my son until the vaccines are made safer and tested properly--the risks outweigh the benefits for me-- especially considering the adverse reactions experienced from vaccines in my family. I often laugh at the irony of it all--I started my research to convince myself vaccines were safe, and found just the opposite. But, back to the article, she then poses a series of questions:

Would you prefer medical professionals keep a distance or share their personal stories regarding child vaccines? Would you want to be in a practice that strictly follows the CDC guidelines and wouldn’t welcome you unless you did, too? What if you hailed from another developed country with a more measured and, perhaps, more evidence-based approach to vaccinations? Which standard of practice would empower you as a parent? Which approach to vaccination best safeguards your child’s wellbeing?

I felt belittled and disregarded in the first office. The nurse sitting at a desk behind a window quickly dismissed me. There was no willingness in considering that perhaps my interest in judiciously and slowly vaccinating my son may be wise. They had an all-or-nothing approach with regard to CDC guidelines. In the second office, I was treated kindly and my rights as a parent to make informed medical decisions were respected. Furthermore, one of the nurses came out of the office to sit and share with me a personal story – parent-to-parent, mother-to-mother. Her story was difficult to hear, but I was grateful she shared it.

[...] While I have no problem with schools establishing vaccine guidelines, I support the rights of parents to opt out of such mandates by way of religious or philosophical exemptions. I’m very concerned when parents are belittled or disregarded after raising safety concerns regarding the current CDC schedule. For example, perhaps there would be fewer adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine if it were available in three separate doses, or given to children when they are at least three years of age, as Thomas advises in his book. 

I want parents to be informed, educated, and unafraid to ask important questions. I want medical professionals in the United States to consider the possibility that there may be vaccination schedules that are healthier for our nation’s children, schedules that are more soundly rooted in evidence-based science, than our current CDC schedule. I am not alone in worrying that we are vaccinating too much, too soon.

While I do not agree with everything in her article, I appreciate the sentiment and willingness Amy had in starting the conversation and promoting awareness of the gray-area in this "movement." It might be just the article to make someone question mandated vaccines, vaccine schedules, and vaccine safety & efficacy--who would have otherwise not considered it.

Here's a link to the full article, worth a read: http://www.phillyvoice.com/its-not-wearing-like-a-seatbelt-defending-a-parents-right-to-vaccinate-their-children-or-not/