I detest the fact that we are even put into a situation like this....you know, Benadryl is a fabulous drug, but it is not some magical potion that prevents ALL anaphyllactic reastions...it certainly does a great job of counter acting the majority of deadly symptoms, but to tempt fate by giving a vaccine that you KNOW your baby is allergic to and has already had a moderately severe acute reaction to, JUST because you have been given a feeling of security by giving Benadryl prior to the vaccine.....I HATE that! If I was you, before that vaccine is due again, I would be compiling data that shows accurately, the number of cases of the diseases that have occured in your specific area. IF THE RISK OF NOT HAVING THE VACCINE, OUTWEIGHS THE RISK OF GIVING THE VACCINE, THEN I WOULD RELUCTANTLY ABIDE BY THE APPARENT NECESSITY OF GETTING THE VACCINE. But if there have only been a smattering of cases in the State, and none or very few in your area, I would fight it. For those that will argue it is compliance with the law that all dogs receive the vaccine, that has resulted in a low infection rate, I counter with, possibly true, and those dogs that have had no reaction to the vaccine, should continue to receive it. But in your case, I would fight it, backed up with ACCURATE data and documentation. It may all be an exercise in futility, but you have got to try...your baby certainly cant speak out in his behalf! All he can do is show you what happens to him when he gets it. And keep all documentation of this current allergic reaction and treatment and the duration and effectiveness of recovery time. |