http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7392510.stm

Your thoughts on the opinions of Mary Creagh, Labour MP?

The MMR jab rates are at 85% (with an all time low in London) and the target lavel is 95%, so in order to get the rates up, should we take away the parents choice to give the MMR jab?

What more would you do to get parents to let their children have the MMR jab?

At the moment the child has the MMR jab at 13 months old. If you want to have the single jabs they can cost up to £300 each, and is not recomended by WHO.

Thoughts please

I think she has gone to far in suggesting this and I tend to agree with the view of the BMA and others.

I would have thought that responsible parents who were worried about the risks of the MMR jab would pay individually - however I didn't realise it would be £300 i.e. £900 if I have read that correctly...I am genuinely quite shocked at that, although could have expected it to be a couple of hundred.

When you look at the number of cases, this seems to be another case of sensationalism in some way, ok so cases of measles have increased 30%- but they are still very low in the big scheme of things, and the second shock in this article is that "records began in 1995!!"


Personally, I think parents who don't opt for the jab (having presumably weighed up the risk of their options, then they need to accept the responsibility that their child may get measles (or mumps or rubella). I listened to a bit of this on the radio yesterday, and now having read the statistics of cases each year, I think the parents who were objecting that their children were at risk if parents are not forced to immunise their children, are grossly over exaggerating the risk.

However, it did a lot of us no real harm either...(I can remember having mumps myself, and can remember sisters having Rubella although I escaped it) and her proposals seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I don't think you should ever force parents to give children a vaccination. Although, I think the MMR is of far greater benefit than risk I think that each parent can decide that themselves.

I know a lot of mothers from my baby groups who are not planning on getting their children the MMR jab.

One woman has 5 children and all her other 4 have had the jab and have never had any problems, but she has just decided that with her new baby he will not have the MMR.

I looked into single vaccinations but the cost put me off. Also in total you have to go back 6 times for the jabs. My health visitor also said most children who have the single vaccinations end up ill. I am not sure how must I trust her though.

I have signed up for the MMR but am in talks with my doctor about delaying them till 18-24months old.

For me education is a far better solution for increasing the uptake raher than the implied financial enforcement option being suggested. The consequence of this will be people forging proof of vaccination and a high enforcement cost to the government.

I guess what is clear is that those who do not vaccinate are, by their actions exposing others to potential risks, how great these are can be a matter for the science and statistical analysis, however you are in the situation or agueing that a vaccination programme has social benefits in addition to the private benefits which is something all people would agree with hence they are free in the first place.

Charging the full cost of the individual vaccination is correct as there is a perfectly acceptable cheaper solution (which is economically efficient) which is free to the consumer.

Unenforceable. What if the 15% of parents refused on whatever grounds. Are we saying that 15% would be refused an education ? Stalinistic if you ask me.

It's not the risk to other children if little Johnny is not vaccinated but the risk to others, particularly pregnant women, that worries me. Whilst I would be relatively happy for my child to get any one of the 3 diseases (not without their risks) I'm not sure I'd feel so happy letting him get one and then finding out that he'd passed it to a pregnant woman who then went on to have problems with her baby (rubella in partic). I weighed the risks and decided that my little one would have the MMR. There's a lot of info out there and it takes time and a cold towel to sift through it to work out what you do and don't believe.

IMHO the government should have shouted at the time the autism "links" were reported and discredited the advice in the way that they are today - the sample size was very very small (5 children if I recall!). Blair should have et the nation know whether baby leo had had the jab (and not hidden behind privacy - it's hardly a very private matter). But that's me...

See I don't feel there is the right infomation available.

The way in which the MMR is put on you is wrong.

I had just come home from the hospital, had no sleep for the past 3 days and trying to deal with a very hungry newborn and they decide to knock at my door and give me these forms to fill in. They left me a photocopy from a baby book, and two info packs on MMR. All 3 bits of information were the same word for word and didn't tell me anything really other then when they have the jabs and what are the side effects.

I have done my own research and everything is either the same wrote by WHO or is too far the other way and anti-MMR.

Ah, you see, I didn't have to make the decision until just before son was 1. Info was given at the 4-6 month jabs and so there was pleanty of time.

That soon after birth IS daft!

There is some fairly good info on the net but you need to plough through it. Trouble is these days, health visitors and the like can't recommend... they give you the government info and then leave the rest to you. They're not allowed to voice an opinion which I think is daft!

I know I've been in several situations where the nurse/HV etc has said "I'm not allowed to say this but..."

I blame the lawyers:!

Oh dear, what about this then

broken link, or is it just me?