Making medical decisions when parents disagree (insurance, grandfather, mother, kids)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I worry in this case it is less an issue over "whether doctors/medicine are bad" or not and more a disagreement over how much intervention is necessary in certain medical situations. And certainly probably a control issue where both parties want to be making the decisions for the child, and both feeling like the other wants to limit their power in an area where they genuinely disagree (and chose to have a child despite that disagreement.) Even among well-educated professionals and (if discussion on this forum is to be offered as evidence) medical professionals, there are different schools of thought on how much intervention is appropriate in every individual situation via medication. In college, I had a variety of doctors, like many students who just got whomever at the student health center. Some would prescribe an antibiotic at the first sniffle. I remember one, however, who really spent the time to sit me down and educate me about why she was not going to prescribe me anything but a little cough syrup for those same symptoms unless I was sick for more than a week and couldn't kick it. I was young and healthy and capable of doing so. More than likely my symptoms were being caused by a virus anyway. There was actually a danger in taking too many antibiotics.
I am not going to get into the medical specifics of this particular case, and certainly the antibiotics may have been warranted. I just want to suggest that this is something the two parents who created this child need to find a way to find common ground on, rather than keep butting heads. The OP can try to get sole decision making power... and maybe she gets it... but I'm not reading anything so "awful" in a father who wants to make sure his child isn't put on unnecessary medication that will harm her gut flora--which will be his spin on it. I worry this could backfire too. OP, I wonder what would happen if you and your ex sat down and decided on ONE doctor (do you live within 50 miles of each other?) who would be your child's doctor and agreed to go with that person's judgment? Maybe that means you two go on some interviews of pediatricians. Maybe that means he's not completely happy with the person and you're not completely happy, but it's someone you both can live with. I think some are painting this guy as the devil, but I know plenty of people (my dad for one), who are reluctant to use medication unless absolutely necessary as well, and it's not coming from a place of ignorance or an attempt to do harm, but rather one of concern. When you choose to create a child with someone you have fundamental disagreements with, I think that just comes with these sorts of compromises, unfortunately, for 18 years.
Well I'm not sure the doctor would agree with him with this case but he is generally against antibiotics (but did prescribe them for her before) but he is a doctor who I absolutely do not trust any more for various reasons.
We can't pick one doctor for her as we live 100 miles apart and in my town there is only one child clinic so only one paediatrician.
She is much better now, no more pain or fevers, and doesn't even have an upset tummy from the antibiotics (giving her a good probiotic) and is full of beans (he claimed she would become anaemic and very ill from the antibiotics) so I think the right decision was made in the end.
Well I'm not sure the doctor would agree with him with this case but he is generally against antibiotics (but did prescribe them for her before) but he is a doctor who I absolutely do not trust any more for various reasons.
We can't pick one doctor for her as we live 100 miles apart and in my town there is only one child clinic so only one paediatrician.
She is much better now, no more pain or fevers, and doesn't even have an upset tummy from the antibiotics (giving her a good probiotic) and is full of beans (he claimed she would become anaemic and very ill from the antibiotics) so I think the right decision was made in the end.
Jersey, the Hib meningitis vaccine didn't come out until the mid to late 80s. Before it was widely used, the incidence of Hib meningitis was about 1/1000. It was surely given to your girls, in a combination shot or alone, unless you deliberately refused it. The strep pneumo vaccine didn't come out until the late 90s, so the first kids to have gotten it are under 16 years now. It is rarer, but still happens. You're thinking about the meningococcal meningitis vaccine, which didn't come into general use until the early 2000s. It SHOULD be given to everyone at two years old, but is currently not given until 11 years old, and then again at 16 or 17 years old, unless the person is at particularly high risk, due to not having a spleen, or traveling to an area with high prevalence of meningococcal meningitis.
You were NOT a bad parent! You got your kids vaccinated, probably when the pedi or FP recommended it, with all the appropriate, medically indicated vaccines. You just don't remember that they did have the Hib vaccine, probably because it was in a combination with DTP.
As for spacing out the vaccines to, say, once a week, you CAN do this medically for inactivated vaccines, but not the live ones (MMR, chicken pox). Those, you have to give at least a month in between. The real problem with going in once a week for a shot, instead of having three at a time every two months, is that it's very hard for people to get to so many appointments, so the baby often winds up falling behind on the shots, and then is at risk for catching the disease. But if you have a doctor who can accommodate this, it would be perfectly acceptable to go once a week starting at six weeks, for a shot each time, to get all the shots done by the proper age, and the baby would still receive all the proper immunizations at the proper time.
I will add, there has been plenty of research that says this schedule is safe and that infants have no more side effects from multiple immunizations than from having them individually. If anything, it gets the sore legs over with rather than having one a week for years.
Jersey, the Hib meningitis vaccine didn't come out until the mid to late 80s. Before it was widely used, the incidence of Hib meningitis was about 1/1000. It was surely given to your girls, in a combination shot or alone, unless you deliberately refused it. The strep pneumo vaccine didn't come out until the late 90s, so the first kids to have gotten it are under 16 years now. It is rarer, but still happens. You're thinking about the meningococcal meningitis vaccine, which didn't come into general use until the early 2000s. It SHOULD be given to everyone at two years old, but is currently not given until 11 years old, and then again at 16 or 17 years old, unless the person is at particularly high risk, due to not having a spleen, or traveling to an area with high prevalence of meningococcal meningitis.
You were NOT a bad parent! You got your kids vaccinated, probably when the pedi or FP recommended it, with all the appropriate, medically indicated vaccines. You just don't remember that they did have the Hib vaccine, probably because it was in a combination with DTP.
As for spacing out the vaccines to, say, once a week, you CAN do this medically for inactivated vaccines, but not the live ones (MMR, chicken pox). Those, you have to give at least a month in between. The real problem with going in once a week for a shot, instead of having three at a time every two months, is that it's very hard for people to get to so many appointments, so the baby often winds up falling behind on the shots, and then is at risk for catching the disease. But if you have a doctor who can accommodate this, it would be perfectly acceptable to go once a week starting at six weeks, for a shot each time, to get all the shots done by the proper age, and the baby would still receive all the proper immunizations at the proper time.
Correct! We had a kid in our practice who got strep pneumo meningitis this winter. He was little, had only had time to get one dose of PCV vaccine. You do have to get the whole series (3) to get full immunity, and then you need to get the booster after age 1.
At our office, it would be doable to get all the appointments needed to spread the immunizations b/c we have "nurse" appointments where people come in to get shots. I think the hardest part of that is simply keeping up with all these appointments. Infants generally get 4 immunizations per well visit at 2, 4, and 6 months. That would mean 12 appointments to stay up to date when three is all that's necessary. People get burned out on doing all that and start skipping appts. Plus, kids can get sick with other illnesses (ear infections, etc) and have to miss appointments, thus get behind. And it's "junk science". The DTaP shot is actually three different vaccinations itself, but they're combined into one shot. PCV13 is thirteen pneumonia antigens in one dose! Polio is three antigens. You're not ensuring your kid is only getting one antigen, even by spreading them out.
I think the "bad parent" remark was irrelevant, and was supposed to make us rush to say, "oh, no you weren't". I don't think it's "bad", I think it's uninformed. I think all kids should be fully immunized by two, which gives a bit of leeway for spreading out some vaccines, if you so choose to depart from the accepted schedule.
About the meningococcal vaccine - it is effective from the age of 2 yrs. The disease is very rare, but leaves you either dead, or wishing you had died. Young people are at risk living in close quarters - like sleep away camp, college dorms, army barracks. An eight year old child at sleepaway camp has the same risk as an 11 yr old. But younger kids who are living at home do rarely get it. There is debate currently about giving this vaccine at 2 yrs old, since the risk is there, although small. When my kid went away for the summer, I had him get it, even though he was only ten.
About the meningococcal vaccine - it is effective from the age of 2 yrs. The disease is very rare, but leaves you either dead, or wishing you had died. Young people are at risk living in close quarters - like sleep away camp, college dorms, army barracks. An eight year old child at sleepaway camp has the same risk as an 11 yr old. But younger kids who are living at home do rarely get it. There is debate currently about giving this vaccine at 2 yrs old, since the risk is there, although small. When my kid went away for the summer, I had him get it, even though he was only ten.
Do read the link I posted about the meningococcal vaccine. 10 probably isn't too young, but I don't think I'd go much younger if the child wasn't high risk. I'm not familiar with a recommendation for getting it prior to sleep-away camp. I'd be interested in seeing something about that.
The biggest risk is the first year in a college dorm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.