Vaccine-Nation

Jim Carrey, the Hollywood actor, has become an outspoken proponent of safer vaccinations. He recently published an opinion piece on The Huffington Post calling for more research into the effects of vaccination, more specifically the current vaccine schedule and the components in vaccines.

Judging by the comments, Carrey's suggestions strike some as close to blasphemy.

I myself never questioned vaccination until I became pregnant with my first child. As a child of the 80s, I had the MMR and DPT vaccines. Before trips to India, as a child and as an adult, I got the recommended travel vaccines. I was aware of the vaccine controversy because of the fact that I worked with autistic and autistic-spectrum children in my clinical training to become a psychologist. But it wasn't until I was 7 months pregnant and really looking at the latest vaccination schedule that I begin to feel something wasn't right.

The facts are simple: American children are getting more and more vaccinations as time goes on. Day-old infants, before they even leave the hospital, are usually given the Hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B, by the way, is a bloodborne virus that is usually transmitted through IV drug use or unprotected sex. I asked several doctors why an infant would need to be vaccinated for an illness that is contracted through behavior that they would not be engaging in; after all, the Hepatitis B vaccine is only good for 10 years, and I seriously doubt that the vast majority of elementary school kids, even in this day in age, are engaging in sex while using IV drugs. None of the doctors could give me an answer. I saw that the Chicken Pox vaccine was required; I have a clear memory of having chicken pox at the age of 5 - certainly not the happiest memory, but I, like every other kid in my kindergarten class, made it through unscathed, save for a few scars from a scratched pustule. And now, states are seeking to add on more and more vaccinations. New Jersey has been considering adding the yearly flu vaccine to its mandatory schedule. Texas was, for a while, mandating Gardasil, which protects against certain certain strains of the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, for school attendance. Where does it end? When is it enough?

It's not just about autism, though. To make this issue solely about whether or not vaccines cause or do not cause autism is to miss the bigger question: Is it safe to give so many vaccines? Are the risks of so many vaccines outweighed by the benefits? We know that allergic reactions to vaccine components do occur. We know that children, such as Hannah Poling, are, in fact, injured by vaccines. The risks/benefits of not vaccinating a health worker for Hepatitis B who comes in contact with blood is considerably different than for a day-old infant. To suggest there is a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention when it comes to vaccination - when I have yet to see a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention in any other part of medicine - almost seems obscene. To ignore the likelihood of individual reactions and the need to modify vaccination based upon the individual's own and familial medical history and vaccination needs is absurd. I use my own family as an example: There are four generations in my family (that we know of) who have autoimmune disorders. My paternal grandmother and my father both have rheumatoid arthritis. I have Graves Disease. My brother's daughter, at the ripe old age of 2, was diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. The evidence is quite clear that the immune systems in my family are atypical. So why would I want to have my son -who received half of his genetic makeup from me - be vaccinated with a large number of vaccines at one time? Why would I want to vaccinate him for illnesses that he has little danger of catching at this time, such as Hepatitis B? The history is clear - overaggressive immune systems run in the family; why would I want to provoke an aggressive immune response in my little boy?

I believe vaccination, like all valid medical treatments, can be positive and lifesaving. But just as we don't arbitrarily send all depressed patients for electroshock treatment because of the risk/benefits involved, I don't believe we need to mandate that all of our children be vaccinated against every disease. There are risks to putting anything into the human body - from medications to foods - just as there can be benefits. The challenge is determine where the happy medium is, and as of yet, neither the government nor the pharmaceutical companies appear to want to consider doing the research to find that point. The risks of mandating so many vaccinations needs to be studied in depth and by researchers without ties to the vaccine manufacturers. A lot of little lives could depend on it.

Forget Slumdog - Just Plain "Dog"

Sadly, another disturbing incident involving one of the child actors who performed in "Slumdog Millionaire." Rubina Ali, the little girl who played the child version of the female lead, was reportedly offered for sale by her father for 200,000 British Pounds. Comment boards are aflame with people hoping someone, anyone, comes in and rescues Ali from her family; angry comments being made against the director and producers of the movie for not providing more for the child actors; comments about the need for the Indian government to step in; comments about the evil things poverty does to people; and, of course, the run-of-the-mill comments about why are people in such poverty not controlling themselves "more responsibly" and have such large families that they can't support.

Whew!

While it would be great if a benefactor did come in and adopt Ali and save her from her situation, the sad fact is that in India, alone, there are more than 11 million children living in the exact same conditions that she is. 11 million in one country, living in squalor. Approximately 50% of Indians live in poverty; 40% of these individuals are children. One benefactor coming in and saving Ali will not change the conditions for these other children, many of whom are, assuredly, facing being sold into prostitution and slavery as well. It would be great if there was as much outrage and outcries on behalf of these children as there is for Ali.

With regards to the Indian government stepping in and helping these children, that is unlikely to happen without consistent pressure from the outside world and media. The Indian government is known for being corrupt and suffering from it's own inertia. It will likely step in and investigate the Ali situation because of all the worldwide attention being paid to the situation, but as soon as the cameras go away and the lights dim, Ali, just like the millions of other children, will be left to fend for herself.

As far as the producers of "Slumdog Millionaire," honestly, while it would be great if they stepped in and did something, I do not find them to be responsible for this situation. Yes, Ali got paid approximately $4000 to perform in a film that has grossed millions worldwide. Yes, the producers and other workers on the film have undoubtedly made huge sums of money in comparison. But, as with all unknown actors, Ali was paid a prearranged sum for her work. Most actors do not get profit-sharing of the film, regardless of their life situations; in that manner, this case should be no different. As it is, after the fact, the producers did set up educational trust funds for the "Slumdog" child actors and have arranged for their families to move out of the slums. Blaming the filmmakers for this situation is the wrong action, in my opinion.

Personally, I believe that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Ali's father, Rafiq. While the poverty that the Alis live in probably plays a factor, the father's apparent greed and desire for more money for himself appears to be the strongest contributing factor. And unfortunatley, in this regard, he is no different than the numbers of parents here in the United States who exploit their own children for wealth and fame (see: Dina Lohan, Lynne Spears). Even if the filmmakers had given Ali $100,000 or even $1 million for her work, I do not believe it would have been enough for her father - he would still be seeking to make more money off of his child. And unfortunately, as with the complexities surrounding poverty in general, the question of how to deal with parents like this is not an easy one - or one that has a convenient Hollywood ending.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, considering I lived in Texas for 8 years...

State representative Betty Brown is causing a wee bit of an uproar after suggesting that Asian Americans should adopt American names in order to make things easier for poll workers at precincts. Apparently, the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is it indicated that ease of pronunciation is a prerequisite for voting rights eluded Ms. Brown.

A gem from Rep. Brown:
"Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"

The ignorance is almost frightening.

Sexting: A crime or kids being kids?

There has been a lot of discussion about sexting, the act of sending nude pictures over cell phones, in the news lately. A prosecutor in Pennsylvannia threatened to charge 3 teenage girls with sexual abuse of a minor for taking pictures of themselves wearing bras and sending the pictures to friends from their camera phones. That's right: the prosecutor was basically stating that the girls had sexually abused themselves. He justified his actions by stating that their pictures were child pornography. If convicted, the girls could serve time in prison and be forced to register as sex offenders.

Huh?

Look, I don't think anyone would argue that sexting is a really, really stupid thing to do. Really stupid. Monumentally stupid. But is it really a crime to simply be guilty of being a stupid teenager? Last time I checked, it was not illegal for a person to take pictures of him or herself, naked or not.

Now, what you might ask, would I consider a crime? Receiving said pictures and then sending them on to other people without permission, like what Phillip Alpert did. In a temper, Alpert, who was 18 at the time, forwarded nude pics of his 16-year-old girlfriend, which she had sent to him, on to family and friends. However, I don't think that such an action should be a felony, which was what Alpert was convicted of, and I certainly don't believe that it is an act that requires registering as a sex offender. I think that it should be a misdemeanor, perhaps along the lines of harassment. This might discourage teens and adults from not only forwarding such pictures on, but just might discourage some of them from taking such pictures. Because heaven knows, you can tell a teenager not to do something until you are blue in the face, but in the end, it's their decision and they have to deal with the consequences. Let's just make sure the consequences fit the crime...or lack thereof.

A Question of Rights

I am currently 26 weeks pregnant with my second child, a little boy, whom my husband and I plan to usher into the world at home, rather than in a hospital. The decision to homebirth is, to say the least, a controversial one in the medical community. There are certainly those doctors who would argue that I am endangering my fetus by choosing to birth with a midwife in attendance, outside of the hospital setting. But as a competent adult and citizen of the United States, that should be a decision that I have the right to make and carry out. It is my body, after all.

Unfortunately, the ability of pregnant women to make such medical and bodily decisions for themselves is coming under attack, and in the most insidious ways.

On April 4, the North Dakota State Senate voted to defeat legislation that would have defined as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," whether inside or outside the womb; in addition, the legislation would have conferred equal protection under the law to these organisms, from the moment of fertilization.

The scary part is that the North Dakota House had already passed this bill.

While on the surface, this may look like yet another battle in the abortion debate, the fact of the matter is that bills like this not only undermine the ability of a woman to make decisions about abortion, they undermine the rights of women to make medical decisions, period. By defining life as starting at conception and conferring equal rights on fertilized eggs, suddenly, every miscarriage can be considered a possible homicide, every woman who drinks alcohol or uses drugs when there is a possibility that she might be pregnant is guilty of child abuse, and every pregnant woman who does not agree with the advice of her doctor could be forced, against her will, to undergo medical intervention because of the "rights" of the unborn.

Think I'm overreacting? In 1986, Ayesha Madyun was court-ordered to have a c-section after her water broke two days earlier and she had not given birth; doctors argued there was a 50-75% chance that the fetus was in danger of infection if Ms. Madyun refused intervention. The baby was born healthy with no sign of infection. In 1987, Angela Carder, a woman who was extremely sick with cancer, was forced by a hospital and a judge's order to undergo a cesarean section to deliver her daughter at 26 weeks of gestation. The neonate lived two hours; Mrs. Carder died two days later, and the c-section was listed as one of the causes of her death. In 1996, Laura Pemberton, a woman who was denied the VBAC she wanted, was arrested by a sheriff while in labor and forcible brought to a hospital to have a c-section; Ms. Pemberton later went on to have 4 more children vaginally, without incident, though she labored in hiding. In 2003, Amber Marlowe, a woman in Pennsylvannia, was told by doctors that she had to have a c-section because the fetus was estimated to be 13lbs, which, in their opinion, was too large to birth vaginally. While the doctors and hospital were successfully getting a court order to force the c-section, Mrs. Marlowe and her husband went to a different hospital, where she successfully delivered the 11lb, 9oz girl vaginally without medication.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

No court can compel a person to have medical intervention, such as a transplant or blood donation, for the benefit of another already living person. Yet, these cases show that when it comes to pregnant women, their rights to make medical decisions for themselves are not absolute. If attempts to define personhood at conception succeed, how many women will be forced to undergo interventions and treatments that they do not want? How many women will avoid getting adequate prenatal and personal medical care in order to avoid the chance of being forced into unwanted treatment? Where will it end?