Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their kids

[Pandora II]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Good for the doctors!

Personally I have very little time for those who can vaccinate but don't.

Here it is mandatory for children to be vaccinated to attend nursery, school etc - but then they have the ludicrous opt-out for 'religious' or 'philosphical' reasons.

Why should my child - or more importantly a child with immune-system problems that means that can't be vaccinated and are more susceptable - be subjected to risk because your religion or lifestyle choices are apparently more important.

I don't agree with forcing people to vaccinate their children, but I would like to see governments withdraw services such as state education to children who are not vaccinate (unless there are sound medical reasons why they can't).

Where I live there have been measles epidemics in the last couple of years and a high risk of contracting antibiotic-resistent TB. Children in the area are vaccinated against TB at birth, we have the MMR at 12 months and dose 2 at 13 months - most other areas in the UK give dose 2 at 3.5 years. I paid privately for varicella as it's not usually given in the UK.

Every vaccine, medications, food etc will affect someone out there in a negative way, I still think that the pros of vaccination massively outweigh the very, very small chance of you personally being affected in a negative manner.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am confused why people refuse them after the autism link research was proven false.

Fear trumps reason.

Religions and politicians have exploited this for eons.

I am struggling not to feel extremely offended, because both of you just completely ignored my post about what vaccines had done to me, which had nothing to do with autism. Perhaps it's okay to ignore because it doesn't fit with your gleeful denunciation of everyone who has reservations about vaccines?

It's not a 'small' thing to those whose lives have been devastated. Worse, it could have been avoided if they had waited until I was a few months older to start.

It's all fine and good to say that only a small number of people are harmed by vaccines, but let me tell you, are told that you probably won't live to age 20, when you spent your childhood too ill to play outside or see your friends, when you can't have kids because your body is too fragile to handle pregnancy, YOU then tell me that you are 'confused' why people still refuse them because that stupid autism link was bebunked.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Galateia, just a couple of months ago a friend's little boy had his shots and a few hours later had a seizure and was rushed to the ER. They had to transfer him to a children's hospital for specialized care. The neurologist said it was due to the immunizations he had. I did not ask which ones he was given, but I do think it is much wiser to spread them out so that one can identify the vaccine that the child cannot tolerate.

My state pretty much has the same immunization requirements for school that they had 30 years ago, so it is possible to give essential vaccines here and spread them out much like they did in the past so that the child does not have too many at a time.

 

[iheartscience]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I know, Missy, I was replying to Thing. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm just saying, why stop at firing anti-vaxers? Why not go all in? It's really a slippery slope IMO.

MTG explained why smoking isn't analogous to not vaccinating your kid. And if a pediatrician allows non-vaccinated children in his or her practice, the pediatrician is putting their other patients (some of whom are likely too young to be vaccinated) at risk.

Where's the slippery slope here? I'm not seeing it. Do you really think a doctor should be forced to expose his or her other patients to unnecessary risk?

 

[iheartscience]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am confused why people refuse them after the autism link research was proven false.

Fear trumps reason.

Religions and politicians have exploited this for eons.

I am struggling not to feel extremely offended, because both of you just completely ignored my post about what vaccines had done to me, which had nothing to do with autism. Perhaps it's okay to ignore because it doesn't fit with your gleeful denunciation of everyone who has reservations about vaccines?

It's not a 'small' thing to those whose lives have been devastated. Worse, it could have been avoided if they had waited until I was a few months older to start.

It's all fine and good to say that only a small number of people are harmed by vaccines, but let me tell you, are told that you probably won't live to age 20, when you spent your childhood too ill to play outside or see your friends, when you can't have kids because your body is too fragile to handle pregnancy, YOU then tell me that you are 'confused' why people still refuse them because that stupid autism link was bebunked.

I honestly don't see how it's offensive to still believe that children should be vaccinated. I'm sorry for your terrible experience, but I would imagine your situation is a very rare one. (I don't know the details, obviously, but you're the first person I've "known" who has had such serious issues from vaccinations.) No medical procedures are without risk, but in the case of vaccinations, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.

But again, I'm sorry you were the rare person who ended up with serious side effects.

 

[allycat0303]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am very concerned about claims about vaccines which are not scientifically and statistically correlated. A direct cause and effect has simply not been shown even in instances of Guillian-Bare, intestinal inflammation, and permanent brain damage. The occurrences are so rare, that they could occur due to chance alone, unrelated to the administration of vaccines. I am aware that patients think something is the cause, but it may not be the reality. For example, my FIL had open heart surgery, a week later he was diagnosed with terminal leukaemia. He was convinced that the surgery caused the cancer. It really did not. I understood his need to try and find a reason for his disease. He went to the grave believing that the surgery killed him.

Every medical treatment has side effects or risks. Much more common and scientifically proven. Have these parents given their children cough syrup? Even once? Because the side-effects and scientific data showing the harm they can do is much more robust then harm over vaccines. Antibiotics? Just read the insert provided by the manufacturer (permanent kidney failure, deafness, seizures, death). Forget any type of surgery. EVER. The risk of death after an appendectomy is between 0.3-1%. So 1 out 300 procedures on the low end, 1 out of 100 patients on the high end. Yet many of the same parents that will refuse the vaccine, would have allow their children to have an appendectomy. The risk of a severe reaction after a vaccine is so small, it is unquantifiable. The fear of vaccines is out of proportion with the statistical risk. The problem is that fear is an emotional reaction, which is impossible to rationalize with scientific data.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am confused why people refuse them after the autism link research was proven false.

Fear trumps reason.

Religions and politicians have exploited this for eons.

I am struggling not to feel extremely offended, because both of you just completely ignored my post about what vaccines had done to me, which had nothing to do with autism. Perhaps it's okay to ignore because it doesn't fit with your gleeful denunciation of everyone who has reservations about vaccines?

It's not a 'small' thing to those whose lives have been devastated. Worse, it could have been avoided if they had waited until I was a few months older to start.

It's all fine and good to say that only a small number of people are harmed by vaccines, but let me tell you, are told that you probably won't live to age 20, when you spent your childhood too ill to play outside or see your friends, when you can't have kids because your body is too fragile to handle pregnancy, YOU then tell me that you are 'confused' why people still refuse them because that stupid autism link was bebunked.

I honestly don't see how it's offensive to still believe that children should be vaccinated. I'm sorry for your terrible experience, but I would imagine your situation is a very rare one. (I don't know the details, obviously, but you're the first person I've "known" who has had such serious issues from vaccinations.) No medical procedures are without risk, but in the case of vaccinations, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.

But again, I'm sorry you were the rare person who ended up with serious side effects.

That was not what I said. What offended me was that they were stating autism (which has been debunked) as the ONLY reason people are wary of vaccines, which is dismissive of what happened to me.

If you read my earlier post, you would have seen that I am in support of vaccinating children, but object to vaccinating infants when they are too young and their immune systems are too underdeveloped.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Dear lord, not this debate again.

Every time it comes up are hurt feelings on each side, and people leave forever.

The two sides are never doing to agree. And no one is ever going to convince anyone else that they are wrong or that they need to reconsider. And all this does is inflame tensions and create hard feelings on a very sensitive PERSONAL issue.

Please, haven't we lost enough members to this issue? Come on. Please let's not rehash this. PLEASE.

 

[monarch64]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Dear lord, not this debate again.

Every time it comes up are hurt feelings on each side, and people leave forever.

The two sides are never doing to agree. And no one is ever going to convince anyone else that they are wrong or that they need to reconsider. And all this does is inflame tensions and create hard feelings on a very sensitive PERSONAL issue.

Please, haven't we lost enough members to this issue? Come on. Please let's not rehash this. PLEASE.

I agree, Gypsy. IN MY OPINION this was begun as a total shit-stirring post. The OP has been around quite long enough to know what sort of controversy and upheaval this topic brings to PS.

 

[justginger]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Interesting - people leaving over the old vaccination debate? I personally don't think 'hurt feelings' should stop an informative discussion on PS...when has it ever?

I suppose what it boils down to for me is even IF you could find a statistically significant correlation between vaccinations and serious medical consequences (which thousands of independent scientists and researchers around the world have been unable to do thus far), I simply wouldn't care. I am of the mindset that the good of the whole trumps the good of the individual. It is a matter of evolutionary necessity. We have sooooo many laws and guidelines of acceptable behavior in place to prevent the good of individuals trumping the good of society.

I'd like to drive as fast as I want in order to get to work on time, but the law says that is dangerous and I can not.
I'd like to save money by not paying for a cab home, but the government says drinking and driving is unacceptable.
I'd like take off my seat belt because it's scratchy and gives me dermatitis, but it's illegal for me to do so.
I'd like to leave my child crawling over the backseat, free rein, because putting her in her car seat makes her scream, but that's also against the law.
(none of these examples are actually true, just cases in which people would like to act in their perceived best interests and the government/society demands that they put the safety of others first)

I would be happy for anti-vax people to do whatever they want...in their own little pod society. "The Village" style. No outside contact. I applaud mothers for trying to research and doing what they think is in their child's best interests. In .000001% of cases, perhaps the anti-vaxers are right and they save their child from a fate such as Galateia describes. But for the other 99.999999% of people, those parents are flat wrong. And their error in judgement threatens the immunity levels of our whole country, the lives of hundreds or thousands of other children.

I do understand the concern in having so many vaccinations in such a short amount of time. It seems that people are now spacing them out a bit better. I think that is more than acceptable, but the fact is your child should be fully immunized before they spend a significant amount of time wandering around in society, having contact with other medically compromised children/adults. And I think that perhaps Australia has more casual guidelines with boosters - I remember my parents having their DTPa boosters every 10 years, but my colleagues in the medical field say that new research suggests immunity lasts longer than a decade, and unless you're potentially exposed to tetanus, it's not necessary to have them so often.

As Circe pointed out, overall it's not the health of the unvaccinated children that most people are primarily concerned about (sorry kids, it's not your fault that your parents have made poor decisions, but such is life)...it is the REST OF SOCIETY. I feel like the anti-vaxers have been studying history books with pages ripped out. These diseases used to kill a significant portion of the population before adulthood. Life for children only 100 years ago was a serious gamble. We've spent years upon years and millions of dollars developing ways to keep precious young lives healthy and it's a smack in the face to see people spurn that, putting not only their own children, but everyone else at unnecessary risk.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Interesting - people leaving over the old vaccination debate? I personally don't think 'hurt feelings' should stop an informative discussion on PS...when has it ever?

I suppose what it boils down to for me is even IF you could find a statistically significant correlation between vaccinations and serious medical consequences (which thousands of independent scientists and researchers around the world have been unable to do thus far), I simply wouldn't care. I am of the mindset that the good of the whole trumps the good of the individual. It is a matter of evolutionary necessity. We have sooooo many laws and guidelines of acceptable behavior in place to prevent the good of individuals trumping the good of society.

I'd like to drive as fast as I want in order to get to work on time, but the law says that is dangerous and I can not.
I'd like to save money by not paying for a cab home, but the government says drinking and driving is unacceptable.
I'd like take off my seat belt because it's scratchy and gives me dermatitis, but it's illegal for me to do so.
I'd like to leave my child crawling over the backseat, free rein, because putting her in her car seat makes her scream, but that's also against the law.
(none of these examples are actually true, just cases in which people would like to act in their perceived best interests and the government/society demands that they put the safety of others first)

I would be happy for anti-vax people to do whatever they want...in their own little pod society. "The Village" style. No outside contact. I applaud mothers for trying to research and doing what they think is in their child's best interests. In .000001% of cases, perhaps the anti-vaxers are right and they save their child from a fate such as Galateia describes. But for the other 99.999999% of people, those parents are flat wrong. And their error in judgement threatens the immunity levels of our whole country, the lives of hundreds or thousands of other children.

I do understand the concern in having so many vaccinations in such a short amount of time. It seems that people are now spacing them out a bit better. I think that is more than acceptable, but the fact is your child should be fully immunized before they spend a significant amount of time wandering around in society, having contact with other medically compromised children/adults. And I think that perhaps Australia has more casual guidelines with boosters - I remember my parents having their DTPa boosters every 10 years, but my colleagues in the medical field say that new research suggests immunity lasts longer than a decade, and unless you're potentially exposed to tetanus, it's not necessary to have them so often.

As Circe pointed out, overall it's not the health of the unvaccinated children that most people are primarily concerned about (sorry kids, it's not your fault that your parents have made poor decisions, but such is life)...it is the REST OF SOCIETY. I feel like the anti-vaxers have been studying history books with pages ripped out. These diseases used to kill a significant portion of the population before adulthood. Life for children only 100 years ago was a serious gamble. We've spent years upon years and millions of dollars developing ways to keep precious young lives healthy and it's a smack in the face to see people spurn that, putting not only their own children, but everyone else at unnecessary risk.

Dead horse. You want an informative debate look at the 15 previous posts the have re-hashed this issue again and again. Nothing NEW has come up. Nothing new will come about as a result of this thread.

IF you have ANYTHING to add that hasn't been said 100 times before. Feel free. I doubt it though.

As for 'when has it ever'... we have a FORUM POLICY ban on politics and issues of this sort for a reason. We don't discuss abortion on this forum, or anything else of that nature. And THIS TOPIC is also a personal choice, with conflicting information, and strong opinions, with the lives children involved to make it nice and personal and heated. No different, IMO. So, yes, there is PLENTY of precedent.

This is total shit stirring, I agree.

Kenny,

 

[Circe]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I dunno, I thought it provided additional info, and eloquently at that.

I think one of the reasons debates are worth having is on the off-chance that somebody's eloquence DOES sway a party on the other side - or at least provide them with new information, or a perspective worth considering. I've never thought all that highly about people who are so delicate that even the suggestion of an alternative perspective threatens to scar their fragile minds, driving them, lo! forth from an internet forum, FOREVER.

(And if somebody in the thread is being an asshat, dude - report button, or peace out, as the spirit takes you.)

This debate is different (heh, why is this debate different from all other debates? sorry, inside joke), because it's not about vaccinations qua vaccinations, but about whether doctors have a right to ban patients who refuse them from the waiting room. Last page, somebody compared them to pharmacists who invoke conscience clauses to deny (sometimes life-saving) medication to women because they don't approve of their choices. Me, I think it's at the exact polar opposite position on the scale ... but I'm having to stretch my brain to articulate why. I LIKE that.

 

[missy]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Last page, somebody compared them to pharmacists who invoke conscience clauses to deny (sometimes life-saving) medication to women because they don't approve of their choices. Me, I think it's at the exact polar opposite position on the scale ...

I think it's because in the case of the physician firing the patient he/she is doing so because that patient is putting others health (sometimes life-threatening) at risk by not vaccinating. The pharmacist who is denying the patient the (sometimes life-saving) medication is putting that patient's health at risk. Of course that analogy could be totally wrong as I have just woken up after a fitful night of sleep so sorry Circe if that is not what you meant at all.

Also, I believe (and I truly hope) it is against the law for the pharmacist to deny someone a medication their doctor prescribed...
(unless it is due to a missed drug interaction that could hurt that patient).

And I totally agree with Circe's perspective that having debates like this could be a positive thing. As long as it remains civil it is good to understand why others have their POV KWIM? It can be constructive and doesn't need to degrade into a brouhaha.

 

[iheartscience]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Dear lord, not this debate again.

Every time it comes up are hurt feelings on each side, and people leave forever.

The two sides are never doing to agree. And no one is ever going to convince anyone else that they are wrong or that they need to reconsider. And all this does is inflame tensions and create hard feelings on a very sensitive PERSONAL issue.

Please, haven't we lost enough members to this issue? Come on. Please let's not rehash this. PLEASE.

But here's the thing-this isn't a sensitive PERSONAL issue. This issue affects ALL OF SOCIETY. And there aren't 2 equal "sides," either. One side has FACTS and SCIENCE, and the other side has JENNY MCCARTHY.

If people want to leave a diamond website because their wittle feelings get hurt because people refuse to validate their baseless beliefs, so be it. Enough with the net nannying.

 

[iheartscience]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Interesting - people leaving over the old vaccination debate? I personally don't think 'hurt feelings' should stop an informative discussion on PS...when has it ever?

I suppose what it boils down to for me is even IF you could find a statistically significant correlation between vaccinations and serious medical consequences (which thousands of independent scientists and researchers around the world have been unable to do thus far), I simply wouldn't care. I am of the mindset that the good of the whole trumps the good of the individual. It is a matter of evolutionary necessity. We have sooooo many laws and guidelines of acceptable behavior in place to prevent the good of individuals trumping the good of society.

I'd like to drive as fast as I want in order to get to work on time, but the law says that is dangerous and I can not.
I'd like to save money by not paying for a cab home, but the government says drinking and driving is unacceptable.
I'd like take off my seat belt because it's scratchy and gives me dermatitis, but it's illegal for me to do so.
I'd like to leave my child crawling over the backseat, free rein, because putting her in her car seat makes her scream, but that's also against the law.
(none of these examples are actually true, just cases in which people would like to act in their perceived best interests and the government/society demands that they put the safety of others first)

I would be happy for anti-vax people to do whatever they want...in their own little pod society. "The Village" style. No outside contact. I applaud mothers for trying to research and doing what they think is in their child's best interests. In .000001% of cases, perhaps the anti-vaxers are right and they save their child from a fate such as Galateia describes. But for the other 99.999999% of people, those parents are flat wrong. And their error in judgement threatens the immunity levels of our whole country, the lives of hundreds or thousands of other children.

I do understand the concern in having so many vaccinations in such a short amount of time. It seems that people are now spacing them out a bit better. I think that is more than acceptable, but the fact is your child should be fully immunized before they spend a significant amount of time wandering around in society, having contact with other medically compromised children/adults. And I think that perhaps Australia has more casual guidelines with boosters - I remember my parents having their DTPa boosters every 10 years, but my colleagues in the medical field say that new research suggests immunity lasts longer than a decade, and unless you're potentially exposed to tetanus, it's not necessary to have them so often.

As Circe pointed out, overall it's not the health of the unvaccinated children that most people are primarily concerned about (sorry kids, it's not your fault that your parents have made poor decisions, but such is life)...it is the REST OF SOCIETY. I feel like the anti-vaxers have been studying history books with pages ripped out. These diseases used to kill a significant portion of the population before adulthood. Life for children only 100 years ago was a serious gamble. We've spent years upon years and millions of dollars developing ways to keep precious young lives healthy and it's a smack in the face to see people spurn that, putting not only their own children, but everyone else at unnecessary risk.

Dead horse. You want an informative debate look at the 15 previous posts the have re-hashed this issue again and again. Nothing NEW has come up. Nothing new will come about as a result of this thread.

IF you have ANYTHING to add that hasn't been said 100 times before. Feel free. I doubt it though.

As for 'when has it ever'... we have a FORUM POLICY ban on politics and issues of this sort for a reason. We don't discuss abortion on this forum, or anything else of that nature. And THIS TOPIC is also a personal choice, with conflicting information, and strong opinions, with the lives children involved to make it nice and personal and heated. No different, IMO. So, yes, there is PLENTY of precedent.

This is total shit stirring, I agree.

Kenny,

Last I checked that ban didn't extend to ALL ISSUES THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER DISAGREE ABOUT. If that's the case the mods may as well just go ahead and shutter Pricescope. Not sure if you've noticed, but it seems that banning topics has certainly helped caused a mass exodus.

justginger's post was fantastic-intelligent, well written, and reasonable. We don't need you net-nannying posts like hers out of existence. They're already an endangered species on Pricescope.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am confused why people refuse them after the autism link research was proven false.

Fear trumps reason.

Religions and politicians have exploited this for eons.

I am struggling not to feel extremely offended, because both of you just completely ignored my post about what vaccines had done to me, which had nothing to do with autism. Perhaps it's okay to ignore because it doesn't fit with your gleeful denunciation of everyone who has reservations about vaccines?

It's not a 'small' thing to those whose lives have been devastated. Worse, it could have been avoided if they had waited until I was a few months older to start.

It's all fine and good to say that only a small number of people are harmed by vaccines, but let me tell you, are told that you probably won't live to age 20, when you spent your childhood too ill to play outside or see your friends, when you can't have kids because your body is too fragile to handle pregnancy, YOU then tell me that you are 'confused' why people still refuse them because that stupid autism link was bebunked.

I honestly don't see how it's offensive to still believe that children should be vaccinated. I'm sorry for your terrible experience, but I would imagine your situation is a very rare one. (I don't know the details, obviously, but you're the first person I've "known" who has had such serious issues from vaccinations.) No medical procedures are without risk, but in the case of vaccinations, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.

But again, I'm sorry you were the rare person who ended up with serious side effects.

That was not what I said. What offended me was that they were stating autism (which has been debunked) as the ONLY reason people are wary of vaccines, which is dismissive of what happened to me.

If you read my earlier post, you would have seen that I am in support of vaccinating children, but object to vaccinating infants when they are too young and their immune systems are too underdeveloped.

Honestly, I did not read your posts. What I posted was not in any way aimed towards you and your experiences. I have never met anyone who had serious side effects at the result of routine vaccinations. It would be interesting to see the statistics. However, I 100% support the right of the doctor to decide not to treat patients who refuse vaccinations. I believe that is their ethical right.

 

[Laila619]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I dunno, I thought it provided additional info, and eloquently at that.

I think one of the reasons debates are worth having is on the off-chance that somebody's eloquence DOES sway a party on the other side - or at least provide them with new information, or a perspective worth considering. I've never thought all that highly about people who are so delicate that even the suggestion of an alternative perspective threatens to scar their fragile minds, driving them, lo! forth from an internet forum, FOREVER.

(And if somebody in the thread is being an asshat, dude - report button, or peace out, as the spirit takes you.)

This debate is different (heh, why is this debate different from all other debates? sorry, inside joke), because it's not about vaccinations qua vaccinations, but about whether doctors have a right to ban patients who refuse them from the waiting room. Last page, somebody compared them to pharmacists who invoke conscience clauses to deny (sometimes life-saving) medication to women because they don't approve of their choices. Me, I think it's at the exact polar opposite position on the scale ... but I'm having to stretch my brain to articulate why. I LIKE that.

That's what the topic should be about, but IMO it's turned into the old 'anti-vaxers are crazy and foolish' topic.

 

[ksinger]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Interesting - people leaving over the old vaccination debate? I personally don't think 'hurt feelings' should stop an informative discussion on PS...when has it ever?

I suppose what it boils down to for me is even IF you could find a statistically significant correlation between vaccinations and serious medical consequences (which thousands of independent scientists and researchers around the world have been unable to do thus far), I simply wouldn't care. I am of the mindset that the good of the whole trumps the good of the individual. It is a matter of evolutionary necessity. We have sooooo many laws and guidelines of acceptable behavior in place to prevent the good of individuals trumping the good of society.

I'd like to drive as fast as I want in order to get to work on time, but the law says that is dangerous and I can not.
I'd like to save money by not paying for a cab home, but the government says drinking and driving is unacceptable.
I'd like take off my seat belt because it's scratchy and gives me dermatitis, but it's illegal for me to do so.
I'd like to leave my child crawling over the backseat, free rein, because putting her in her car seat makes her scream, but that's also against the law.
(none of these examples are actually true, just cases in which people would like to act in their perceived best interests and the government/society demands that they put the safety of others first)

I would be happy for anti-vax people to do whatever they want...in their own little pod society. "The Village" style. No outside contact. I applaud mothers for trying to research and doing what they think is in their child's best interests. In .000001% of cases, perhaps the anti-vaxers are right and they save their child from a fate such as Galateia describes. But for the other 99.999999% of people, those parents are flat wrong. And their error in judgement threatens the immunity levels of our whole country, the lives of hundreds or thousands of other children.

I do understand the concern in having so many vaccinations in such a short amount of time. It seems that people are now spacing them out a bit better. I think that is more than acceptable, but the fact is your child should be fully immunized before they spend a significant amount of time wandering around in society, having contact with other medically compromised children/adults. And I think that perhaps Australia has more casual guidelines with boosters - I remember my parents having their DTPa boosters every 10 years, but my colleagues in the medical field say that new research suggests immunity lasts longer than a decade, and unless you're potentially exposed to tetanus, it's not necessary to have them so often.

As Circe pointed out, overall it's not the health of the unvaccinated children that most people are primarily concerned about (sorry kids, it's not your fault that your parents have made poor decisions, but such is life)...it is the REST OF SOCIETY. I feel like the anti-vaxers have been studying history books with pages ripped out. These diseases used to kill a significant portion of the population before adulthood. Life for children only 100 years ago was a serious gamble. We've spent years upon years and millions of dollars developing ways to keep precious young lives healthy and it's a smack in the face to see people spurn that, putting not only their own children, but everyone else at unnecessary risk.

Dead horse. You want an informative debate look at the 15 previous posts the have re-hashed this issue again and again. Nothing NEW has come up. Nothing new will come about as a result of this thread.

IF you have ANYTHING to add that hasn't been said 100 times before. Feel free. I doubt it though.

As for 'when has it ever'... we have a FORUM POLICY ban on politics and issues of this sort for a reason. We don't discuss abortion on this forum, or anything else of that nature. And THIS TOPIC is also a personal choice, with conflicting information, and strong opinions, with the lives children involved to make it nice and personal and heated. No different, IMO. So, yes, there is PLENTY of precedent.

This is total shit stirring, I agree.

Kenny,

Last I checked that ban didn't extend to ALL ISSUES THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER DISAGREE ABOUT. If that's the case the mods may as well just go ahead and shutter Pricescope. Not sure if you've noticed, but it seems that banning topics has certainly helped caused a mass exodus.

justginger's post was fantastic-intelligent, well written, and reasonable. We don't need you net-nannying posts like hers out of existence. They're already an endangered species on Pricescope.

Ditto that. When did ANY disagreement become synonymous with "politics". This is the first thread I've read on PS for months, because when I come in here it's all about "What did you have for lunch??" etc, etc. 'Bout as interesting and relevant to real life as sitting in warm wallpaper paste. I go visit the for sale section, colored stones every now and again, and look every month or so at the bling thread, but other than that, this place is pretty dead. I hang out now in a political forum of about 98% men. It's full of the usual suspects and gets heated at times, but it's refreshingly uncensored and at least nobody gets their feeeeeeeelings hurt every 20 seconds.

 

[Circe]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Last I checked that ban didn't extend to ALL ISSUES THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER DISAGREE ABOUT. If that's the case the mods may as well just go ahead and shutter Pricescope. Not sure if you've noticed, but it seems that banning topics has certainly helped caused a mass exodus.

justginger's post was fantastic-intelligent, well written, and reasonable. We don't need you net-nannying posts like hers out of existence. They're already an endangered species on Pricescope.

Ditto that. When did ANY disagreement become synonymous with "politics". This is the first thread I've read on PS for months, because when I come in here it's all about "What did you have for lunch??" etc, etc. 'Bout as interesting and relevant to real life as sitting in warm wallpaper paste. I go visit the for sale section, colored stones every now and again, and look every month or so at the bling thread, but other than that, this place is pretty dead. I hang out now in a political forum of about 98% men. It's full of the usual suspects and gets heated at times, but it's refreshingly uncensored and at least nobody gets their feeeeeeeelings hurt every 20 seconds.

A) Ditto to the underlined, if I didn't make myself clear before.

B) Ksinger, we miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss you!

Last page, somebody compared them to pharmacists who invoke conscience clauses to deny (sometimes life-saving) medication to women because they don't approve of their choices. Me, I think it's at the exact polar opposite position on the scale ...

I think it's because in the case of the physician firing the patient he/she is doing so because that patient is putting others health (sometimes life-threatening) at risk by not vaccinating. The pharmacist who is denying the patient the (sometimes life-saving) medication is putting that patient's health at risk. Of course that analogy could be totally wrong as I have just woken up after a fitful night of sleep so sorry Circe if that is not what you meant at all.

Also, I believe (and I truly hope) it is against the law for the pharmacist to deny someone a medication their doctor prescribed...
(unless it is due to a missed drug interaction that could hurt that patient).

And I totally agree with Circe's perspective that having debates like this could be a positive thing. As long as it remains civil it is good to understand why others have their POV KWIM? It can be constructive and doesn't need to degrade into a brouhaha.

And C) Missy, I think you put your finger on it. I see one of these things as being selfish and All About the Care-Giver (pharmacist, in this case, as I've heard the argument that they don't want to endanger their own immortal souls by, say, prescribing Cytotec to a woman who's hemorrhaging because it will speed the process of an in-progress miscarriage), and the other as being All About the Care-Giver's patients (practically speaking, for an unscrupulous physician, accepting unvaccinated children would be a goldmine - they get sick lots, and infect lots of other kids, who then need lot and lots and lots of expensive procedures). But the fact that this seems like a viable parallel outside of the fact that they're both cases of medical professionals denying service sort of fascinates me. Is it seen as a ... contagion of the soul, sort of, to be in need of certain kinds of medicine? Don't want to tangent the thread, I'm just deeply intrigued by how the logic of the parallel would work.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Y'all are talking like Jenny McMarthy and her bogus autism link is the ONLY thing people have ever been concerned with regarding vaccines. That's not true. She wasn't even on society's radar when my mother started researching to find out if what happened to me was as rare as people are claiming. There was plenty of information then, long before McMarthy started banging her little drum.

Also, y'all are suggesting that everyone who is not in favour of them is flat-out anti-vaxer (as you put) it, as if there is no middle ground. I am glad to hear that people are now spacing out vaccines when they give them to infants; perhaps the higher-ups have grown uncomfortable with the invisible victims of vaccinations. Or with having to pay out damages to them: http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc/reports/104.pdf

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I totally "get" both sides of the vaccine controversy, so that is not an issue with me. I support vaccines as long as they are not given excessively young and are spaced out in case of bad reactions. I think new vaccines need to be tested for an adequate amount of time before letting the public be the guinea pigs. I think anyone who just blindly accepts everything a doctor says as 100% infallible has a very false sense of reality, though. Research is so important, and thankfully, there is really good info out there to help parents successfully alter the vaccination schedule as well as learn about basic meds and health issues.

As far as doctors go, they have the right to see whomever they want if they are in private practice, just as I can change doctors when I believe one seems incompetent. If a pharmacist owns the pharmacy, he can stock it with whatever drugs he wants. If he doesn't carry what I want, I just go to another pharmacy. I don't see the big deal with any of that. I prefer living in a free society rather than one where the government controls everything and there are no private businesses.

And yes, Gypsy is right that this is a tiresome topic.

 

[HollyS]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I have not read each and every one of the responses here, so my reply is based soley upon what I think. (My sister is a medical professional, so I'm not completely talking out of my a** here, thank you.)

Considering the sheer number of serious diseases and health ailments that we had (by the late 20th century, anyway) very nearly irradicated from the U.S. - - completely and irrefutably due to immunizations - - it is utterly foolish for anyone to refuse or deny this extremely effective treatment.

Celebrities, by and large, should stop trying to use name recognition to call attention to their dumb. I'm talking about you, Holly Robinson Peete.

I am beyond surprised that the federal government did not step in long ago and make preventive measures mandatory . . . for the good of the general public.

Yes, I know mine is the 'take no prisoners' approach, and I'm aware that I'm leaving no room for personal choice. When it comes to the right of all (U.S.) citizens to be free of and protected from dangerous diseases, that we know we can control, I make no apologies.

 

[missy]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

<snip>

As far as doctors go, they have the right to see whomever they want if they are in private practice, just as I can change doctors when I believe one seems incompetent. If a pharmacist owns the pharmacy, he can stock it with whatever drugs he wants. If he doesn't carry what I want, I just go to another pharmacy. I don't see the big deal with any of that. I prefer living in a free society rather than one where the government controls everything and there are no private businesses.

Here's the problem I have with this. At the underlying core of every medical professional are a few basic and important principles- core values if you will. One we all know- the obligation to do no harm. A no brainer.
Two, the obligation of healthcare providers to work for the public good.
Three, the medical professional must provide accurate and unbiased information to the patient so they can make educated decisions about their care.

At no place in these basic values should religion get in the way. It really pisses me off that there are pharmacists who think they should dictate to the patient what medicine they may or may not take due to the pharmacist's religious beliefs. WTF. That pharmacist has no business practicing IMO. Or he/she should practice in a commune where everyone thinks the same way (ie brainwashed).

Where I might see a gray area is if the pharmacist immediately sends the patient to a nearby location in order to get that medication ASAP so there is no timely delay. However, in practical terms that is not going to be easy under most circumstances depending on where you live (urban vs other types of neighborhoods). Under no circumstances should that pharmacist prevent the patient from receiving the care needed as soon as possible. I am thinking about the example for emergency contraception where a delay could and will make a difference.

My personal belief is that church/religion should and needs to be completely separate from medical care of the population. They need to abide by the rules of each state and do the best for the patient that they can under said rules.

I am beyond surprised that the federal government did not step in long ago and make preventive measures mandatory . . . for the good of the general public.

Yes, I know mine is the 'take no prisoners' approach, and I'm aware that I'm leaving no room for personal choice. When it comes to the right of all (U.S.) citizens to be free of and protected from dangerous diseases, that we know we can control, I make no apologies.

I totally agree with Holly here. There really is no room for mistakes unless we want society to be doomed to diseases we have long eradicated. The potential suffering and death toll is not imaginary and once we have these diseases return it won't be so easy to eradicate again. History does not need to repeat itself.

 

[Ella]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Respectful discussion and disagreements are welcome as always on PS. Please keep religion and politics out of the discussion and there will be no problem.

Nasty and childish posts are what get subjects banned, not polite discourse.

 

[Pandora II]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I'd be interested if someone who knows the answer would chime in...

I'm always a little confused by people that assert that vaccinating young children is bombarding their immune system?

Last time I looked, babies are not kept in sterile bubbles, but are out there in the world where their immune systems are being bombarded by thousands of pathogens every second. I can't see that a vaccination or two is really going to make any difference?

Here in the UK, you can only get single vaccinations on a private basis. Talking to the doctor at the very large and reputable private clinic in London where I had DD's varicella vaccine done, she said that they had had a nightmare with the single vaccines.

Clinics setting up and taking the money for the course up front and then going out of business, clinic buying in the vaccines from less than reputable manufacturers, vaccines being transported and stored in the wrong way.

A lot of parents had ended up not only giving their kids gawd knows what in the case of the single vaccines but then having to give the full MMR on top.

Despite the fact that they as a reputable clinic had made a lot of money out of the single vaccines, she had had her own children immunised at her GPs office with the combined vaccines and on the government schedule.

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I am very concerned about claims about vaccines which are not scientifically and statistically correlated. A direct cause and effect has simply not been shown even in instances of Guillian-Bare, intestinal inflammation, and permanent brain damage. The occurrences are so rare, that they could occur due to chance alone, unrelated to the administration of vaccines.

So these occurrences are or can not reasonably said to be anything other than "chance"? Do you really believe what you are saying? Drug companies can't provide a "cause and effect" to say how their own products work often- read the paper that come with medications where they go into detail about how they don't know how their own products work! It seems impossible that vaccines don't sometimes cause adverse effects.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Pandora, I am really thankful that we still have private health care here and have the freedom to choose our physicians and get top quality medications and immunizations without worry. All I can tell you is that our friends whose little boy had the seizure after routine immunizations and had to be hospitalized will think a lot more about what shots he is getting and how much he is given at one time from here on out.

Missy...I don't want a private practice physician to be told by the government who he/she has to treat; I don't want a pharmacist to be told what he has to stock in his privately owned pharmacy; I don't want the government to tell private colleges that they can't be all female or all male or affiliated with a particular sponsoring group; and I don't want the government to tell me what methods to use to teach dyslexic children to read when I tutor privately. This has zero to do with religion and everything to do with the freedoms we have in this country. There are probably no pharmacies that carry every single drug anyway. I have certainly been told before that a prescription drug was not available at a pharmacy and had to go to another. I think it would be ludicrous for me to demand that every privately owned pharmacy cater to my particular needs.

 

[Skippy123]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

This thread was tough for me to read because as a parent you want to do everything in the best interest of your kids; they are a parents heart. My kids were born premature 9 1/2 weeks so from the very beginning I was anxious about decisions I made for my boys. I did what I did and I can't take it back so I pray and hope what we did is for my boys was the best in the end. Anyway, we vaccinated them.

 

[Pandora II]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

Pandora, I am really thankful that we still have private health care here and have the freedom to choose our physicians and get top quality medications and immunizations without worry. All I can tell you is that our friends whose little boy had the seizure after routine immunizations and had to be hospitalized will think a lot more about what shots he is getting and how much he is given at one time from here on out.

Missy...I don't want a private practice physician to be told by the government who he/she has to treat; I don't want a pharmacist to be told what he has to stock in his privately owned pharmacy; I don't want the government to tell private colleges that they can't be all female or all male or affiliated with a particular sponsoring group; and I don't want the government to tell me what methods to use to teach dyslexic children to read when I tutor privately. This has zero to do with religion and everything to do with the freedoms we have in this country. There are probably no pharmacies that carry every single drug anyway. I have certainly been told before that a prescription drug was not available at a pharmacy and had to go to another. I think it would be ludicrous for me to demand that every privately owned pharmacy cater to my particular needs.

We have private healthcare here and the same freedoms as you do - we just also have the option to have most things for free if we choose. The UK wasn't a socialist country last time I looked...

No-one makes the choice between food or meds or is left facing such huge bills that they may have to sell their house to pay for them. Nor do they have to buy their medications from the Internet so as to get them cheap and in the process take who the heck knows what.

I'm sure that there are plenty of practices in the USA and every other country that don't keep their vaccinations in the appropriate manner or who are buying them through less than ideal avenues.

I wanted to vaccinate my child against chicken-pox - it is not a vaccine that the government provides for free so I did a lot of research into the private clinic that I went to in order to get this vaccination. What worried me is parents who believed the Wakefield nonsense and decided that they would be acting in their child's best interest by paying for the single shot and ended up far worse off than if they had just gone with the government funded system to start with.

For every vaccine and every medication there will be people who have adverse reactions from the mild to the severe. That does not mean that the vaccine or medication is not statistically safe. I'm extremely sensitive to paracetamol and it can make me very ill if I take it - however millions of other people in the world take it every day with no side-effects.

Obviously if you are the person whose child has an adverse reaction you would be crazy not to look at what you would do with the rest of their vaccinations, but it doesn't mean that the vaccination is inherently unsafe for millions of other children.

 

[Laila619]

Re: Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their ki

I'd be interested if someone who knows the answer would chime in...

I'm always a little confused by people that assert that vaccinating young children is bombarding their immune system?

Vaccines are filled with aluminum and formaldehyde. It seems like common sense to me to not bombard babies with multiple vaccines all at once. Aluminum isn't good for anyone, adult or baby. I'm all for vaccines, but they need to be spaced out more. The only reason they are all given at once is because it's easier for doctors/parents to keep track of what the baby has received. It's certainly not the best for a baby.