Home | Purpose WCF6 WCF5 WCF4 | WCF3 | WCF2 | WCF1 | Regional | People | Family Update | Newsletter | Press | Search | DONATE | THC 

zz

  Current Issue | Archives: 2010; '07; '06; '05; '04; '03; '02; '01 | SwanSearch | Subscribe | Change Address | Unsubscribe

zz

 

Family Update, Online!

Volume 06  Issue 41 11 October 2005
Topic: Utopia Against the Family

Family Fact: Vexing Vaccines

Family Quote: Firing Families

Family Research Abstract: Day Care vs. Breastfeeding

Family Fact of the Week: Vexing Vaccines TOP of PAGE

"More than one in three children aren't fully protected from potentially deadly childhood diseases like measles and whooping cough because they didn't get the complete series of recommended vaccines or they didn't get them on time, according to a new study.

CDC researchers found more than one in three infants were behind on their vaccinations for more than six months during their first two years of life, and one in four children experienced delays in getting at least four of the recommended vaccines.

... Overall, the study showed that children were undervaccinated an average of 172 days for all vaccines combined during their first two years of life. About 34% were behind on their vaccinations for less than one month and 29% for one to two months, but 37% were behind for more than six months."

(Source: Jennifer Warner, "Vaccination Delays Put Many Children at Risk," WebMD/Fox News, March 08, 2005; http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/101/106454.htm?src=rss_foxnews .)

Family Quote of the Week: Firing Families TOP of PAGE

"Well over a third of pediatricians - 39 percent - say they would "dismiss" families that refuse all vaccinations, a new study suggests. That's surprising, says study leader Erin A. Flanagan-Klygis, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Chicago's Rush Medical College.

But another finding surprises Flanagan-Klygis even more. More than one in four pediatricians - 28 percent - say they would fire families that agreed to some vaccinations but refused one or more other vaccinations.

"We were really taken by the number of doctors who would dismiss patients who were partially accepting of vaccinations," Flanagan-Klygis tells WebMD. "We did not expect this high a number."

The study is based on questionnaires filled out by 302 randomly selected members of the American Academy of Pediatrics who provide routine childhood vaccinations. It appears in the October issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine."

(Source:  Daniel J. DeNoon, "Pediatricians Would Dismiss Families Who Refuse Vaccinations," Fox News, October 03, 2005.)

For More Information TOP of PAGE

The Howard Center and The World Congress of Families stock a number of pro-family books, including Utopia Against the Family: The Problems and Politics of the American Family, edited by Bryce Christensen. Please visit:

    The Howard Center Bookstore   

 Call: 1-815-964-5819    USA: 1-800-461-3113    Fax: 1-815-965-1826    Contact: Bookstore 

934 North Main Street Rockford, Illinois 61103

Family Research Abstract of the Week: Day Care vs. Breastfeeding TOP of PAGE

Placing young children in day care exposes them to sharply increased risk of infection. Breastfeeding young children sharply reduces that risk - even when those children are in day care. But only keeping young children out of the day-care center and in the arms of a breastfeeding mother provides optimal health protection.

To investigate the way breastfeeding and day care affect children's health, a team of epidemiologists at the University of Ottawa recently examined statistical data collected for a representative sample of 1,841 young children living in the province of Quebec. Much as they expected, day-care attendance drove up the frequency with which these children contracted infections and therefore the frequency with which they had to receive antibiotics to combat these infections. "Day care attendance," write the Ottawa scholars, "not only increased the number of antibiotic treatments at each of the studied ages, but it also had a negative effect on the number of antibiotic treatments between birth and five years." The researchers were hardly puzzled by this, given that "day care puts children in contact with other children and creates a milieu suitable for the development of infections."

Also much as expected, breastfeeding drove down the frequency with which the children in the study contracted infections and therefore the frequency with which they had to receive antibiotics to fight these infections. Indeed, breastfeeding conferred protective effects on children long after they had been weaned. The Ottawa researchers find that even in multivariable analyses that control for maternal smoking, maternal education, and family income, breastfeeding for at least four months confers a statistically significant "protective effect" against antibiotic treatments at 1.5 years and at 2.5 years.

If breastfeeding delivers a "protective effect," it only stands to reason that not breastfeeding yields a health risk. The researchers indeed document such a risk.  However, the researchers calculate that "day-care attendance had a stronger effect on antibiotic treatments than not being breast-fed." More specifically, "day-care attendance was related to the prescription of 1 or more antibiotic treatments at all ages." In fact, "day-care attendance raised by 30% the odds of having one antibiotic treatment between 2.5 and 4-5 years of age, and it doubled the odds of having three antibiotic treatments between 2.5 and 4-5 years of age."

Breastfeeding delivers its "protective effect" in all of the family circumstances examined in this study, but the researchers were particularly interested in its effects on young children in day care. Their parsing of the data indicates that "breast-feeding reduced the number of antibiotic treatments given to children entering day care before 2.5 years of age." For day-care children two- and-a-half years old, the researchers calculate that "the odds of receiving three or more antibiotic treatments was 2.9 for children breast-fed at least 4 months, 3.4 for children breast-fed less than 4 months, and 4.7 for children never breast-fed."

Stating the obvious, the researchers suggest that "the more-at-risk children could be protected by breast-feeding and by being taken care of in a familial setting, especially before 2.5 years of age."

This new study does show that breast-feeding helps to mitigate the bad health outcomes of day care, but only a relatively small percentage of the young children who end up in day-care centers receive even this partial protection. In our mixed-up, contemporary world, the lucky children are the ones born into less affluent families where they are cared for and breast-fed at home and not into the wealthier families where their careerist mothers drop them off at the sources of contagion we call day-care centers.

(Source: Lise Dubois and Manon Girard, "Breast-feeding, day-care attendance and the frequency of antibiotic treatments from 1.5 to 5 years: a population-based longitudinal study in Canada," Social Science & Medicine 60 [2005]: 2035-2044, emphasis added.)
 

NOTE:

1. If you would like to receive this weekly email and be added to the Howard Center mailing list: Click Here to Subscribe 

2. Please invest in our efforts to reach more people with a positive message of family, religion and society. Click Here to Donate Online

3. Please remember the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in your will. Click Here for Details

4. If applicable, please add us to your 'approved', 'buddy', 'safe' or 'trusted sender' list to prevent your ISP's filter from blocking future email messages.

 

 

 

 

 

 Home | Purpose WCF6 WCF5 WCF4 | WCF3 | WCF2 | WCF1 | Regional | People | Family Update | Newsletter | Press | Search | DONATE | THC 

 

 

Copyright © 1997-2012 The Howard Center: Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. |  contact: webmaster