My concern regarding the delay of the vaccination is that moms can be exposed to these viruses without knowing it (especially if they have older children in daycare and school situations), and exposing their babies long before they know they have been exposed or are harboring these germs. 

So here is the mom with no antibodies, and no new vaccination, faithfully practicing birth control, and happily breastfeeding her otherwise compromised infant.  She becomes unknowingly exposed to the viruses, and is now exposing him without even knowing it, both through her milk and throught the air-borne route.  Wouldn't the virus in attenuated form yield a more minimal response than one that the full blown disease would do.  And wouldn't it be just a single-sided exposure, rather than a double whammy?

Dr. Hale said that a few babies have gotten sick when mom got the vaccine.     If that were all to the story, I would say then delay the vaccine.  But, are there studies that show how many babies get sick with rubella when mom catches it for real?   Or show what are the percentages of unprotected moms who do catch these viruses?  You can separate mom from her baby once she has had an outbreak, and you know she is sick.  But isn't she incubating and passing on the virus for at least 10 days before you actually know she has it?

Chanita, San Francisco

PS.  Tom Hale, I hope you realize I am not challenging your information.  I am looking to find if there may be more sides to the story, TO WEIGH ALL THE RISKS, as we are taught to do here at Lactnet U.



 
----------
From:   Jan Barger RN, MA, IBCLC[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:34 PM
Subject:        vaccines

Tom writes, regarding rubella vaccine:

<< I believe there are always exceptions to the rule and a weakened infant
 would not need the added burden of a live virus (even if it is attenuated)
 thrown into this already dangerous situation.

 I agree that breastmilk is certainly beneficial to these infants and perhaps
 a donor could be briefly arranged for this specific situation.  But I do not
 believe that we should always throw "caution to the wind" just so that we
 can support breastfeeding an infant.

 Sorry to be a naysayer !!
  >>

While I agree with Tom, let's for a moment think, just perhaps, we may want
to postpone the mom getting the vaccine until her baby is no longer in
danger.  Why do we have to rush to give the mom the vaccine if the baby is
compromised in some way?  Let's talk to her about the importance of
breastfeeding to this particular baby, and using reliable birth control to
prevent an immediate pregnancy, and then, as soon as the baby is (a) of
adequate weight or (b) no longer compromised or (c) all of the above, get the
vaccine!!!

why do we make this SO difficult?

Jan