Vaccination: A Historical View

To vaccinate or not? This has been in the forefront of the news this week, with campaigns urging parents to vaccinate; and proclamations issued about child care centres and unvaccinated children.

To those of my parents’ generation, it would be unthinkable to have this debate. They all knew people who had tragically lost four, five, even all nine of their children, often within days of each other. They knew exactly what to do when each new vaccine came along.

In my own family history, an ancestor lost her husband, son and daughter from diphtheria. They all died within the space of two days. This happened in 1896.

As a farmer, I follow general animal husbandry practice to routinely vaccinate my livestock so as not to lose them from dreadful diseases such as tetanus, Black disease, blackleg and pulpy kidney. A simple vaccine, two injections given four to six weeks apart, prevents the early death of otherwise healthy young animals.

We do our best not to lose our animals from preventable disease.

How much worse if it is our children?

The anti-vaccination lobby can present frightening scenarios to parents. Unfortunately, they only reveal a very small part of the picture. They seem to have forgotten what it was that drove scientists like Pasteur and Jenner to produce vaccines: Human suffering and death!

For various reasons, lately, some parents have not been vaccinating their children. The only reason they have gotten away with it if they have! is because most people, since vaccines have become available, do vaccinate their children.

If you are considering not vaccinating because of a very natural fear for the safety of your child, I would say this:

  • You are making this decision on behalf of another human being.

  • It could literally mean his/her life or death.

  • You must be aware of the consequences: i.e. Are you prepared to play Russian Roulette with the life of your child?

Please, read the research. Don’t be put off by conspiracy theory claims. There are legitimate studies available through medical journals such as The Lancet. Weigh up the risks of vaccination and compare them to the risks of a fatal disease like diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus or smallpox.

Remember, the only reason they are now rare is because of rigorous vaccination programs. And, sadly, whooping cough is making a big comeback. If it can do it, so can others.

Let’s do a spot-check on Diphtheria, one of the worst killers of children:

  • An acute infectious bacterial disease usually affecting children under ten.

  • Primary lesion is in upper respiratory tract where the bacteria produce a toxin.

  • General symptoms are sore throat, fever, fatigue.

  • If it affects the larynx, the child may die of suffocation without a tracheotomy.

  • Worst case scenario: toxins cause heart failure and paralysis leading to death.

Before the 1940s this frightful disease was on top of every parent’s anxiety list. But, hey, the good news is: they found a vaccine.

Can anybody seriously tell me they would contemplate this risk for their child? If they didn’t have to?

Here are some stats from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: In 1940-44 the average annual death rate from Diphtheria in England and Wales was 1,830, dramatically reducing with immunisation, until in 1969 the figure was zero. This adds up to many thousands of families not having to grieve the loss of a child; many thousands of children who grew up to be adults and not statistics. Maybe you were one of them …

Finally, if you are still undecided, I suggest you visit any old cemetery (1880 – 1920 should do the trick) and check out the ages and heart-wrenching inscriptions on the headstones. And/or go to the death and funeral notices in the digitised old newspapers in Trove. 1896 perhaps?

You will then be able to make an informed decision.

The Courage of the Pope

I heard the stunning news that the Pope has just resigned the first Pope to do so since Pope Gregory XII(resigned 4 July 1415), almost 600 years ago. Listening to him being lauded for his courage in knowing when to step aside, I thought of the kind of courage I would like to see in the next Pope.

I stand, open-mouthed, when I see good, serving priests excommunicated. And why? Because they fall in love, admit they cannot keep their vows of chastity and marry. These are good men who find they cannot serve God alone, without the support and nurture of a partner and the joy of children. The Church loses a devout family for each one they get rid of. Not only that, but some of these men start their own church and take their parishioners with them. There are many dioceses who have to make do with lay preachers, crying out for priests, when there are good ones cast aside.

Believe me, this is not a flippant debate. It has been going on at least since Vatican II. Why deny such men their rightful place in the Church? Why not let them marry and solve the problem?

I once spoke to a priest about this and he explained that the vow of celibacy was the ultimate sacrifice: the key to the priesthood. Yet, I have seen such sad priests. They listen to everyone’s problems, have so much misery dumped on them; then when they get home there is nobody to comfort them.(It is not just sex I am talking about here, but the physical and emotional support of a family.)  Fine, if they want to aspire to such a pinnacle. All I am saying is that it should be personal choice and if they find they fall short, they can still be good, perhaps even better priests.

The Pope I want to see will have the courage to go back to the Bible rather than Church tradition and allow priests to marry as they once did. Many Catholics have hailed Saint Peter as the first Pope. There is no doubt that he was married.

If I am flummoxed by seeing good men excommunicated, I cannot even find words to describe how I feel about the green light predators have been given to infiltrate the Church, their repulsive desires concealed beneath a mantle of piety. Church authorities, having failed to deal effectually with this incendiary issue, have continued to sweep it under the carpet until the mound has got so big it is blocking the door and will now be the subject of a Royal Commission.

 I believe in the seal of the confessional, but priests have a duty of care to protect the innocent. Why should they not as a general procedure support and encourage the victims themselves to go to the police? They will then have satisfied both criteria. Alternatively, the Church has closed orders where they could keep these vile creatures away from children. Defrocking them first, of course.

Then they could spend the rest of their lives in isolation, praying for their victims. I would have no fault to find with that. But because of cover-up, crimes committed over the last 40 years are only now coming to light, the Church having negotiated compensation in return for what? The silence of the victim? More cover-up?

Who can compensate victims who will never recover: who struggle with horror every day? What price betrayal by a trusted family friend? What figure can be set upon a ruined life?

The Pope I want to see will have the courage to lift the carpet, clean out the filth and put down a bright, new welcome mat. He will recognise that damaged souls need more than money, putting in place a victim support network to help them heal. A wise and holy shepherd, he will banish wolves that would ravage the flock; and shore up the walls of the fold.

I don’t wish to denigrate the achievements of Pope Benedict XVI. To me he is a sensible man. Perhaps he will encourage other public figures to know when their time of service should be over.

But a Pope who would change the church for the better? That is the courage I would like to see.

Will I get my wish? I wonder, hope and pray …

Behavour Getting Worse in Prisons?

It is official: the behaviour of inmates is deteriorating in our prisons despite the carrot of early release for good behaviour.

I heard this interesting statistic discussed on our Wednesday Forum on the radio. Each of the four guests declined to hazard an opinion on why this may be. But sadly, I knew the answer straightaway.

Back in my teaching days, I came across a ‘BAD’ boy. He’d served time in juvenile detention for break and enter, and was generally considered a hardened criminal by the age of twelve. After a couple of years, he was released back into the community, ‘rehabilitated’, and sent back to school.

A Dickensian character, he was small, pale and sharp-featured, a sure sign of malnourishment in early childhood. He was ‘aggro’ and temperamental, unless something caught his interest. Then he was surprisingly clever, touching in his eagerness to learn. He was good at maths and art: something he had found out about himself in prison. We got through our lessons by a combination of tact(on my part), magnanimous restraint(on his) and humour.

Imagine how I felt when I overheard him confide to a friend: ‘You know, it’s not bad in prison. You have sheets on your bed, good food – three good meals a day, every day; hot showers, TV. I’m going to do something so I can go back.’

I found it hard to hold back tears. This poor little boy had not even the basics in his home that he found in prison. No, I am most certainly not suggesting that we lower the standards of our prisons. Nothing is further from my mind.

I do, however, think it a shameful indictment on our society that children can be raised in such poverty and neglect that prison life with all its restrictions and only basic provision for human needs can seem like luxury to those who have never known sheets on their beds or good food on the table (or perhaps do not even have a table).

This poor child saw in his prison bars, levels of security and comfort he had never known in a house where filth, neglect, hunger, physical and verbal abuse by drink and drug-ridden adults was the norm.

Who wouldn’t prefer a residence with locked doors, sheets on the bed and three good meals a day? It only makes sense when you think about it – if you can bear to.

One question:Whatever happened to that famous promise of no Australian child being in poverty after 1990?