AGHHHH!!!

I just want to scream!

It is 11:30pm and I still need to shower before bed, but I can't help but vent.

Background: Last year the case of Hanna Polling vs. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, in which the plaintiff’s parents claimed that vaccines contributed to their child’s autism, was settled in favor of the plaintiff. March 6, 2008, Larry King interviewed the parents of the nine-year-old child who developed symptoms of autism shortly after receiving nine vaccines at her 19-month checkup.

Today: The AAP released a statement to address the recent controversy on vaccines and autism. It began with a discussion on what autism is and what the theoretical causes may be, along with reassurance that there is no evidence of any connection between vaccines and autism. The policy went on to explain what mitochondrial disease is and how this may have played a role in the Hannah Polling case. It concluded with a discussion on the overall safety and benefits of vaccines and urged parents to continue to vaccinate as usual.

I understand the risks associated with the diseases, and I understand that the rate of the diseases being manifest has gone down since the introduction of vaccines, but what I don't understand is the research that shows vaccines have some very rare but potentially serious side effects (because there are some). And there is a bit of research that shows there may be a link between autism and vaccines in some children, as the Hannah Polling case reflects.

Or perhaps what I should say is I don't understand how the AAP expects me to go along with them and stick my head in the sand. I mean, at least acknowledge the above mentioned research. Preferably, disprove the disturbing research or come up with an explaination. But don't demean me for having questions that no one has answered (especially when it comes to the welfare of my children)! When the AAP discredits or ignores all the real true-to-life stories like Hanna's instead of acknowledging the repeated correlation of vaccines and autism, I feel as though I can't believe a word that comes from their mouths!

Aghh, the same goes for the the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. After the release of "The Business of Being Born," (a new documentary by former talk show host Ricki Lake that explores various methods of childbirth) and a national campaign to license more midwives to preside over births at home in an effort to lower the chances of unneeded surgery, ACOG reiterated "its long-standing opposition to home births...ACOG acknowledges a woman's right to make informed decisions regarding her delivery and to have a choice in choosing her health care provider, but ACOG does not support programs that advocate for, or individuals who provide, home births...Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre."

I understand the risks and complications that can suddenly arise during pregnancy and labor. And I understand that hospitals are more prepared for emergencies. But I also understand that there are risks for choosing to deliver in a hospital as opposed to at a freestanding birth center or at home (i.e. germs and the like, unnecessary surgery, complications of surgery)! Does ACOG really expect me to stick my head in the sand? How dare they disgrace me for taking all things into consideration. I want to be the one to make the best decision for me (which isn't the same for everyone), and I can't do that if they go and make statements like that. (When ACOG says it does not "support programs that advocate for home births" they are essentially disallowing an MD to collaborate with a homebirth midwife. I might as well say goodbye all homebirth CNM's. Not to mention obstetricians and gynecologists have a personal interest in their "position statement" -- more business for themselves; hardly objective.)

I just don't get it.