Wow Emma! :-(

PoppaGator, the problem with the side-effects argument is simple. You can have your child injected with something that has odds somewhere below one-in-a-thousand of some side-effects, and side-effects that are non-fatal at that. Or you can leave your child without it, in which case your child has a better than one-in-ten chance of dying. (Quick Google shows worst-case childhood mortality in the UK was 149.5 deaths per thousand in the 1750s.)

If there are some *very* specific medical circumstances which significantly raise the risk of side-effects, then you have a decent reason. But even then, you were still taking a gamble with those kids, balancing the higher risk of non-fatal side-effects against the lower risk of fatal infection. You played the odds right - but the dice don't always fall as per the odds. :-(

The problem is that vaccination is like taxes. If everyone pays, the odd one or two can get away with freeloading and things still go OK. But if most of the place says "hey, I can freeload too" then your roads, power stations and water supplies fall apart, and everyone loses.

Graham.