I have a dilemma

[Cosmos]

I don't think you should get the vaccine.

After that, your choice is telling your son that you will not get the vaccine, or lying to him. I don't think you should lie to him, but if you tell the truth then you would also need accept the possibility that he might not let you see your granddaughter. Your son unfortunately has the free will to decide that he will have his children vaccinated. If you decide to lie to him, then you would need to accept the possibility that you might incur bad karma or his anger if he finds out that you lied. It's one thing to lie defensively to protect yourself. It's another thing to lie offensively.

Hlat, I really don't think that this would be lying offensively at all. And I don't think it would incur bad karma either. It seems to me that this is external consideration for Laurel's son combined with consideration for her own health. All of that seems to be in line with the work as I understand it.

I agree. A quote that fits here:

"There is good, there is evil and the specific situation that determines which is which"

I don't think lying in this case will bring any "bad karma" to Laurelayn for the reasons T.C. and Flashgordonv have already explained, although I can understand the concern that lying in this case could lead to a rather serious reaction from Laurelayn son, if he finds out.

So it seems to me at this point, that the safest approach is Joes second suggestion:

[...]
If you really don't want to lie, there is an alternative I suppose. Since it seems likely that your son will get the Tdap vaccine for his daughter at age 2 months, you could wait until then to visit. That's assuming, of course, that he wouldn't still ask you to get your own shot even then.[...]

Other then that, as Alada said, I think you yourself can judge the situation best, since you know the family dynamics and which route would be best for all involved.

 

[monotonic]

If I were in Laurie's position, I would explain to the son that I think a vaccine is harmful for my health so I won't get one. I would also express my desire to see my granddaughter. I would also say to the son that I understand if you won't let me see my granddaughter but I hope you reconsider and let me know if you decide that I can see her.

That sounds like a reasonable third option to me.

Seconded. I say this because if her son won't allow her to visit without being vaccinated, I would not be blaming her for the damage to the family, but her son. To lie could turn out well, but there is still some inherent danger in that situation. And the free will choice of the father. Furthermore to do so might in a way be a judgement on the what the family and the grandchildren "need". All is lessons, and like Laura wrote in The Wave we should not try to alter the lesson, for ourselves or anyone else.

Maybe the Universe is the way it is for a reason, and we don't need to go in and "fix" things?

 

[Laura]

If I were in Laurie's position, I would explain to the son that I think a vaccine is harmful for my health so I won't get one. I would also express my desire to see my granddaughter. I would also say to the son that I understand if you won't let me see my granddaughter but I hope you reconsider and let me know if you decide that I can see her.

That sounds like a reasonable third option to me.

Seconded. I say this because if her son won't allow her to visit without being vaccinated, I would not be blaming her for the damage to the family, but her son. To lie could turn out well, but there is still some inherent danger in that situation. And the free will choice of the father. Furthermore to do so might in a way be a judgement on the what the family and the grandchildren "need". All is lessons, and like Laura wrote in The Wave we should not try to alter the lesson, for ourselves or anyone else.

Maybe the Universe is the way it is for a reason, and we don't need to go in and "fix" things?

I agree. It's an outrageous demand, but it is their right. It is also your right to not get a potentially harmful vaccine - harmful to you and/or the baby. Perhaps you could select some articles about it on sott and forward them?

Otherwise, if they stick to their position, you stick to yours. Sounds to me like there is a lot more going on there than just trying to dictate terms to you about seeing a grandchild. Grandchildren are greatly overrated anyway.

 

[Chu]

I think that given those outrageous "conditions", I would do what hlat suggested, plus maybe offer to see your grandchild on skype for the time being if your son doesn't change his mind. And it's not just the vaccine issue. Sleeping in a tent is not going to be the most comfortable situation for you, to say the least. It's an expensive trip, as you said, and IMO, a motorhome is no "home" for a baby if that is what the parents chose, and not out of need. Sometimes the best you can do is extricate yourself from a situation, and let others learn their own lesson when they are being demanding (and ignorant) like that.

In this case, I think you would be justified in telling him why you don't want it by sending him articles on how dangerous those things are. He can read them or not, change his mind about the "conditions" or not; that's his business. But you should not be forced to go against the knowledge you have and what you know is right. Or so I think.

T.C., I think you may have overreacted here.

A grandmother is supposed to be a part of a child's life, and her grandchild and her son cannot replace the enormous value that Laurelayn can bring to their lives.

So you have someone acting from sheer ignorance, putting his family at risk. And Laurelayn has the ability to mitigate the damage done to her and her family by telling one, little, white lie.

How so? We're only talking about a short visit before they move far away, and Laurelayn can't afford to visit often. So, THEY don't seem to value much the grandparents being close by. In a healthy (and nowadays rare family), the grandparents would play a very important role when allowed to do so. But the situation seems different here. The "demands" may be telling too. So that "white lie" wouldn't accomplish much, I think. The damage is going to be done by the parents, via their choices and ignorance, whether L. visits for a few days or not.

 

[T.C.]

T.C., I think you may have overreacted here.

A grandmother is supposed to be a part of a child's life, and her grandchild and her son cannot replace the enormous value that Laurelayn can bring to their lives.

So you have someone acting from sheer ignorance, putting his family at risk. And Laurelayn has the ability to mitigate the damage done to her and her family by telling one, little, white lie.

How so? We're only talking about a short visit before they move far away, and Laurelayn can't afford to visit often. So, THEY don't seem to value much the grandparents being close by. In a healthy (and nowadays rare family), the grandparents would play a very important role when allowed to do so. But the situation seems different here. The "demands" may be telling too. So that "white lie" wouldn't accomplish much, I think. The damage is going to be done by the parents, via their choices and ignorance, whether L. visits for a few days or not.

I didn't know the full details of the situation. I was coming from a scenario of a family who live close to each other and aren't going to be separated by anything other than this potential rift; in which scenario, I thought just lying was a no-brainer.

 

[theos]

You could lie (how would he know it was a lie unless you fessed up?) or stand your ground and refuse. Or you could say you can't visit now for whatever reason, ignore the vaccination request and visit over Skype. This may save you some drama in the long run. His request is ridiculous anyway and unless he gets proof of vaccination for every person the baby comes in contact with she'll be in 'danger' for the rest of her life.

Your son sounds very rigid and inflexible. This silly vaccination demand and being okay with letting his mom sleep in a tent to visit? That's just weird. If he knows you're short on money he'd help you out with a hotel room or you could all get cozy together in the trailer.

 

[hlat]

I don't think you should get the vaccine.

After that, your choice is telling your son that you will not get the vaccine, or lying to him. I don't think you should lie to him, but if you tell the truth then you would also need accept the possibility that he might not let you see your granddaughter. Your son unfortunately has the free will to decide that he will have his children vaccinated. If you decide to lie to him, then you would need to accept the possibility that you might incur bad karma or his anger if he finds out that you lied. It's one thing to lie defensively to protect yourself. It's another thing to lie offensively.

Hlat, I really don't think that this would be lying offensively at all. And I don't think it would incur bad karma either. It seems to me that this is external consideration for Laurel's son combined with consideration for her own health. All of that seems to be in line with the work as I understand it.

I guess I don't understand why lying to the son is necessary in this situation.

Seriously? Are you completely unable to put yourself in Laurelayn's position?

I don't see a threat to Laurie's survival and well being, such as losing a home, losing a job, losing food, going to prison. It's understandable the desire to be with a new grandchild.

Have you seen Start Trek? You sound like a Vulcan who is unlearned in the ways of the humans.

However, the son is in charge of his children. If the son has required certain conditions for his children, I would not break those conditions. That's his free will.

Through the son's lack of knowledge, he is putting his entire family at risk: physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and risking the familial bond and relationship. The implied choice that he is making Laurelayn face is going to either hurt her physically or hurt her and the whole family emotionally.

A grandmother is supposed to be a part of a child's life, and her grandchild and her son cannot replace the enormous value that Laurelayn can bring to their lives.

So you have someone acting from sheer ignorance, putting his family at risk. And Laurelayn has the ability to mitigate the damage done to her and her family by telling one, little, white lie.

If I was the son, and I somehow learned that my mom lied to me, I would be incredibly upset and justifiably so.

Not getting the vaccine and not seeing granddaughter is an option.

Yes, but it's a horrible option - a horrible option which would then not just be caused by the son's ignorance, but by your arrogance - and it doesn't have to come to that.

If I were in Laurie's position, I would explain to the son that I think a vaccine is harmful for my health so I won't get one. I would also express my desire to see my granddaughter. I would also say to the son that I understand if you won't let me see my granddaughter but I hope you reconsider and let me know if you decide that I can see her.

There are times when people are going to put us in situations where we, and even they, will be harmed because of their choices or views and opinions. In such situations, we have the right to act in the best interest of ourselves, and if there's a way to act in the best interest of ALL involved, then that is the correct way to act.

I don't think your approach of steadfastly and coldly declaring your position based on your rigid principles, to hell with everyone else in the world, is of benefit to anyone in this scenario.

Do you see that there are alternatives that don't involve anyone getting hurt?

On external considering:

In Fourth Way parlance, external considering is the practice of taking others into account when acting, seeing their situation as it is and accordingly making life easy both for oneself and for others. Internal considering is the opposite – acting out of a subjective inner state and view of the situation to which one is attached, with any of a number of consequences.

External considering involves making a realistic evaluation of another's situation and acting in ways which take this into account in a positive sense. It is however not the same thing as being socially polite or considerate, although it may be expressed in this manner.

The key concept is to be aware of and to adapt oneself to the level of being and knowledge of others. Thus, one of the things external considering involves is to avoid talking about things which would simply offend others' beliefs or simply not be understood. (See strategic enclosure for more on this.) More generally, external considering relates to an idea of good will towards the environment, in the sense of letting the environment be as it wishes and responding to its requests in a manner that honors its right to be as it will.

External considering is rooted in objective awareness of the environment. Its opposite, internal considering, is rooted in attachment to a subjective inner state, to one's own comfort of preconceptions or desires.

External and internal considering are not always outwardly distinguishable, although inwardly they are fundamentally different. One may for example be socially pleasing purely in order to uphold or reinforce one's own idea of oneself as a 'good person.' Or, be nice out of fear of being judged by others. This is internal considering and preoccupation with how others/the self perceive the self.

In some cases, external considering may involve withholding information that is seen as inappropriate, dangerous or simply unlikely to be well received. An internally considering person may also do this, but then again the motive is different.

We cannot codify with external criteria which action constitutes which kind of considering. The concepts are related to service to others vs service to self and to objectivity vs subjectivity. Usually the term considering is applied in the context of personal interactions.

Only through having external considering can one serve others. This requires responsiveness and a sense of objectivity and awareness of what is right action for the given situation. Serving in the sense of merely carrying out commands is not external considering.

I don't feel like responding, and I think I should respond because you took the time and energy to direct this at me, and I need to practice responding instead of ignoring.

One of the lessons I learned from the book the Narcissistic Family is that parents should not use the children as tools to fulfill the goals of the parents. Parents are to look after the needs of the children; the children are not to look after the needs of the parents. Children are not extensions of the parents. So I think parents lying to adult children about something very important to the children should not happen except in extremely dire situations. I don't think this is one of them.

The alternative I see that involves the least amount of hurt to everyone is not getting vaccine and not lying to son and possibly not seeing granddaughter. This is out of consideration for the son that honors his right to be as he will.

Parents are supposed to sacrifice all sorts of desires for the good of their children. At some point parents need to let children make their own decisions and hence their own mistakes. Son has the free will to decide what role grandparents will play in the life of granddaughter. It appears to me in this situation that Laurie needs to be willing to sacrifice her desire to be with granddaughter if son cannot be persuaded to drop the vaccine demand.

By the way, many pediatricians make all sorts of outrageous demands on parents, asking that grandparents and anyone else around the newborn baby get all sorts of vaccines. So the origins or reinforcement of the vaccine demand might not even be from son, but now is coming through son from other sources.

 

[casper]

If I were you, I would not lie.
I familiar them with the well-being of no vaccination ,to parents is to decide of the health of yours child.

I could be wrong but I think that is just an excuse(vaccination) because as Alada said:

Also by that time baby will have started coming into contact with lots of other people in the community as part of day to day life, lots of whom would not have been vaccinated.

What are your relations otherwise?

 

[Ca.]

Parents are supposed to sacrifice all sorts of desires for the good of their children. At some point parents need to let children make their own decisions and hence their own mistakes. Son has the free will to decide what role grandparents will play in the life of granddaughter. It appears to me in this situation that Laurie needs to be willing to sacrifice her desire to be with granddaughter if son cannot be persuaded to drop the vaccine demand.

Says who? Why would any off spring demand such expectations? Who is to say when anyone should be willing to give, and not give away. Just all sounds like religious gloss of expectation, which has negative connotations. IMO

Freewill is freewill. My parents owe my nothing, and vice-a-versa.

Free will (The first universal principle)
Link https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Free_will

 

[MusicMan]

Hello,
I am to go meet my new granddaughter in Colorado next week. an exciting time for me. My son just requested that I get a tdap vaccine before we come out. I do not want to do this but I'm afraid they will see it as me not caring about her health. I don't want to lie to them but I really don't want to get a vaccine either. My entire family has bought into the whole allopathic paradigm and I am afraid for them, but they think I'm crazy so I don't even bring it up any more. How would some of you handle this situation?

Thank you,
Laurie

Hello Laurie, I can only tell you what happened in my situation, young Seth was born on New Year's Eve by Caesar section. My daughter had insisted that we get the tdap vaccine. My wife got the vax, but I refused. I have actually had the Whooping Cough disease when I was younger. anyway my wife was allowed to visit but I was not.
In the passage of time, Seth became old enough to be vaccinated and he was duly vaxxed, after which I was allowed contact.
Yes, I missed his early few weeks, but as it turns out my daughter has required our assistance fairly frequently (new mother) and so we have had good regular contact.
Daughter has found an app called "Tinybeans" onto which she posts regular photos and videos, and we get to see those almost every day. I would encourage this if you cannot be there in person. This also obviates the need to post photos on the Public Forum.
As much as I disagree with the vax thing, it was their choice to do it, and it was my choice not to do it, and that is how it has stood.
You have your own mind to make up, but don't allow yourself to be bullied.
May the Universe smile upon you.

 

[Chu]

I didn't know the full details of the situation. I was coming from a scenario of a family who live close to each other and aren't going to be separated by anything other than this potential rift; in which scenario, I thought just lying was a no-brainer.

Sure. And yes, Laurie hadn't given many details yet. But you were still making some assumptions and overreacting to someone's feedback, I think. Even if there were assumptions on both sides, that still doesn't justify your attitude.

Parents are supposed to sacrifice all sorts of desires for the good of their children. At some point parents need to let children make their own decisions and hence their own mistakes. Son has the free will to decide what role grandparents will play in the life of granddaughter. It appears to me in this situation that Laurie needs to be willing to sacrifice her desire to be with granddaughter if son cannot be persuaded to drop the vaccine demand.

Says who? Why would any off spring demand such expectations? Who is to say when anyone should be willing to give, and not give away. Just all sounds like religious gloss of expectation, which has negative connotations. IMO

Freewill is freewill. My parents owe my nothing, and vice-a-versa.

Well, it is the parents who decide, mostly from a narcissistic perspective, to bring a child into this world. So, THEY are supposed to meet the children's needs, not viceversa. it happens rarely, unfortunately, And after the children are adult, parents should let them make their own decisions, even when it hurts (as in the case of a grandmother not being able to see her grandchild if necessary.). That's how I read hlat's post, and I thought it was pretty reasonable. He was talking about this in the context of "The Narcissistic Family".

 

[luc]

Well, it is the parents who decide, mostly from a narcissistic perspective, to bring a child into this world. So, THEY are supposed to meet the children's needs, not viceversa. it happens rarely, unfortunately, And after the children are adult, parents should let them make their own decisions, even when it hurts (as in the case of a grandmother not being able to see her grandchild if necessary.). That's how I read hlat's post, and I thought it was pretty reasonable. He was talking about this in the context of "The Narcissistic Family".

I agree. Just to give an example - a distant relative of mine has the following dynamic going on: his son has always used pity ploys against him to get money (the relative is quite wealthy). His son basically never really earned money for himself and lived as a parasite. Now he (son) has a girlfriend and a child, and his girlfriend is also all about sucking money from her boyfriend's father. They now use the child as a means to get more: if he pays, he gets to see his grandchild, if not, he doesn't even get invited to large family gatherings. What a mess.

Now, what this relative should do, of course, is to stop all payments, and if it means he never sees his son or grand-child again, so be it. Enough already. But he just can't do it - maybe he wants to keep up appearances, wants to see his son and grand-child, and maybe he fears his son will fall apart if he doesn't continue supporting him. So I think that would be a good example for the need to let children make their own decisions, even if it hurts a lot. That is the obligation in this case, not "being there for him always". Being there means not being there in this case.

So yes, parents do have an obligation I think, and usually this involves suffering in one form or another, whether it's going out of their way to be there for their children, or whether it's to cut all support for their children's benefit. But this idea seems to be quite unpopular, to say the least...

 

[bjorb]

Hi Laurelayn

I don't have much to add,

But like already pointed out it's wise to consider that such demands are meant for ''powerplay.'' I think it's advisable to watch out for more future demands, especially financially.


It shocks me to read how the vaccine-agenda is tearing families apart. But so be it, you can only be united in spirit anyhow. I would say that blood-relatives are generally overrated. Our loyalty can be used against us. And it's never been more greatly exploited than in families.

If you want to see them there is nothing wrong with lying like others already pointed out. It's them who uphold dangerous lies that aid in and prolong the suffering of others.

And besides, this whole vaccine debate like many controversial subjects are complete idiocy. It's like telling someone who believes in Santa Claus that they guy doesn't exists. And they are usually very hostile in their beliefs.

 

[Aiming]

I agree with the feedback given here. Even if it hurts, there might turn up other options along the lines of what MusicMan suggested for seeing your grandchild. Your son's ignorance about it is a pity, but to use it on you in this way, basically emotionally blackmailing you with this condition of getting vaccinated, is out of line (especially, from what you wrote, because he knows your stance on it). I think standing your ground and sending him an article about the topic sounds good. Then, it's up to him.

I have a similar example of what luc describes above: an aunt of mine had been pity-ploying my grandfather for many years ("My children don't have food!"), just so he'd keep supplying her with money, while she wasn't even looking for work, living off unemployment benefits. My grandfather, being of the old generation, saw that her behaviour was somehow wrong, but he couldn't just stop helping her, he'd been raised on providing for his family at all times, saw it as his duty. He got cancer and in his last days when he was tended to by my mother, my mother could say all she wanted, he'd still give his money to his other daughter, although she'd stolen his TV while he was in hospital once, and basically just took his car for herself! After his death, this daughter needed to find another to feed off on, and tried it on my mother and her hubby. But they'd been ahead of her game long ago, so no dice.

So yes, parents do have an obligation I think, and usually this involves suffering in one form or another, whether it's going out of their way to be there for their children, or whether it's to cut all support for their children's benefit. But this idea seems to be quite unpopular, to say the least...

Indeed! The problem is that people/parents aren't taught what is best for their children, what this 'tough love' is, and not caving in to their games. Just now I'm having two clients, both of them single mothers, who let their adult kids continue living at home without giving anything in return, nor working a job, nor pushing them to get an education/apprenticeship/profession, while thinking it is loving their children so much that has them be so lenient. Children raised like that will have a painful awakening when they have to meet the real world out there at last.

Getting back to your situation, Laurelayn, I've thought of this article, that you could include next to others if you decide to be open about your refusal to get vaccinated: Studies outside the U.S. show unvaccinated children healthier than vaccinated children

Just in case he does get interested at some point and does check it out.

 

[Ca.]

Well, it is the parents who decide, mostly from a narcissistic perspective, to bring a child into this world. So, THEY are supposed to meet the children's needs, not viceversa. it happens rarely, unfortunately, And after the children are adult, parents should let them make their own decisions, even when it hurts (as in the case of a grandmother not being able to see her grandchild if necessary.). That's how I read hlat's post, and I thought it was pretty reasonable. He was talking about this in the context of "The Narcissistic Family".

That makes sense. Thanks for the amendment. :)