Fearful of vaccines, some parents find cause for celebration

Bjorn, Genevive

doi:10.1038/nm0708-699a

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Modern pox parties aim to create immunity by infecting children through social contact (or the sharing of infected objects) between the contagious and the non-immune (rather than a needle) and spread the same pathogen (eg, VZV), rather than using a lower risk pathogen (eg, cowpox for smallpox) or a low-virulence inoculum of the same pathogen (eg, live-attenuated vaccines) 5. Such parties are described in the medical literature at least as early as 1916, when one physician describes ‘measles teas,’ where ‘the mothers get afternoon tea and the children get the measles’ and laments that measles is seen as a harmless disease when its severe complications were already well described 7…”

Section: Pox Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There may be a variety of explanations proffered for such a belief, such as that infection is more ‘natural’ than vaccination (although ‘natural’ has a contentious set of potential meanings i ) or because of mistrust of vaccine companies or because of a belief that infection is low risk or that vaccines carry high risks 5. In contrast, scientific consensus suggests that widely used licensed vaccines are safe and effective and certainly carry much lower risk than infection 5 8–10.…”

Section: Pox Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to hold an ethical pox party

Jamrozik

2017

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pox parties are a controversial alternative to vaccination for diseases such as chickenpox. Such parties involve parents infecting non-immune children by exposing them to a contagious child. If successful, infection will usually lead to immunity, thus preventing infection later in life, which, for several vaccine-preventable diseases, is more severe than childhood infection. Some may consider pox parties more morally objectionable than opting out of vaccination through non-medical exemptions. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case. Pox parties involve immediate risk of harm for children and reduce future harms, whereas opting out of vaccination places children at long-term risk of harms that increase with time, at least for some pathogens. Regarding harm to others through onward transmission of infection, this can be easily prevented in the case of pox parties-given the relatively controlled timing of infection-by quarantining attendees after the party, whereas opting out of vaccination involves risks to others that are more difficult to control. I defend three criteria for an ethical pox party: (1) that the disease is sufficiently low risk, (2) that parents consent to their child's attendance and (3) that children exposed to infection are quarantined and isolated appropriately. I argue that, if these criteria are met, pox parties are morally preferable to non-vaccination; such parties involve less risk to non-consenting others and, for some pathogens in some cases, even involve less risk for the children who participate. Thus, policies that permit non-medical exemption to vaccination should also permit ethical pox parties. Alternatively, if pox parties are not permitted, then vaccination should be mandated for those without medical contraindication.

show abstract

Section: Pox Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pox Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%