Doctors "firing" patients refusing to vaccinate their kids

[Pandora II]

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

Aluminium:

The aluminum contained in vaccines is the same as the amount found in 32oz of infant formula. Soy based formulas contain significantly more. Even breastmilk contains aluminium although significantly less than that in formula. The half-life is also only 24 hours.

In any case, neither the MMR nor the Hib/MenC booster contain aluminium.

Formaldehyde:

Vaccines contain around 0.1mg of formaldehyde, used to inactivate the virus or bacteria the vaccine is being used against.

Formaldehyde isn't some 'nasty', it's required for synthesis of amino acids amongst other things and thus essential for the human metabolism. We all have detectable levels of formaldehyde in our circulation. A 2 month old baby will naturally have around 1.1mg in their body - over ten times the amount in a vaccine.


Happy to supply sources for peer-reviewed articles on these.

 

[Skippy123]

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

Aluminium:

The aluminum contained in vaccines is the same as the amount found in 32oz of infant formula. Soy based formulas contain significantly more. Even breastmilk contains aluminium although significantly less than that in formula. The half-life is also only 24 hours.

In any case, neither the MMR nor the Hib/MenC booster contain aluminium.

Formaldehyde:

Vaccines contain around 0.1mg of formaldehyde, used to inactivate the virus or bacteria the vaccine is being used against.

Formaldehyde isn't some 'nasty', it's required for synthesis of amino acids amongst other things and thus essential for the human metabolism. We all have detectable levels of formaldehyde in our circulation. A 2 month old baby will naturally have around 1.1mg in their body - over ten times the amount in a vaccine.


Happy to supply sources for peer-reviewed articles on these.

THank you for posting that Pandora!!! I think these threads make moms second guess themselves.

 

[allycat0303]

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

Imdanny,

I'm not sure you understand my post. Could the vaccine be the cause of a reaction that occurs in 1:100 000? Yes it can. Can that same reaction 1:100 000 be due to chance alone? YES absolutely. The rarer the reaction, the more difficult it is to prove cause in effect, simply because the are so few subjects you can study to figure out the cause. What I'm saying is that a cause= effect has never been shown for vaccines= Gillian bare, intestinal inflammation, permanent brain damage.

I can flip side it.... Drug A has harmful side effects, but is given to 100 000 patients to treat heart attacks. Out of the 100 000 heart attacks, everyone dies except 1 person. Who is cured. Now you can't say how, why or the mechanism, but we should consider giving Drug A to people to treat heart attacks because one person survived. Could drug A have actually saved the patient? Yes. But could that 1 person have lived because he had better genetics? Or it was the aspirin he took? Yes. You wouldn't take that evidence and conclude Drug A saved that patient.

Can vaccines send you into anaphylactic shock? YES. Can they cause fever, YES. Seizures? YES. I'm not arguing with any of that because it's been scientifically proven. So to answer your question, I absolutely believe what I wrote. Cause and effect has not been shown between vaccines and Gillian bare, intestinal inflammation, and permanent brain damage. There are many causes for these diseases OTHER then vaccines. Therefore, this 1:100 000 occurrence that someone got a vaccine and developed this disease could be due to chance alone. It could also be due to the vaccine. But I'm not going to blame it on EITHER cause until it has been proven. That's why evidence based medicine exists. You are forced to make therapeutic decisions based on the evidence, not what you as a physician *thinks* will work.

I listed 3 very specific conditions: Gillian bare, intestinal inflammation, and permanent brain damage, for a very specific reason. No where in my post did I saw ALL reactions related to vaccines were by chance alone.

 

[missy]

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.

I agree with much of what you write DS and in fact have written as much but I have a problem when that pharmacy doesn't cover basic (such as bc) pills. We are not talking about less common drugs that there is not a big need for but instead common everyday drugs that are vital to a woman's choice and lifestyle. Does that same pharmacy not carry condoms? I mean, the majority of the responsibility of bc falls to the woman and this (hypothetical) pharmacist refusing to carry this drug due to his/her personal religious beliefs just seems wrong to me.

When you take your oath as a physician or other fill in the blank health care provider it is an oath not to be taken lightly and one that doesn't discriminate based on race/religion/gender etc. This hypothetical pharmacist has his personal religious beliefs but that doesn't mean he should impose them on his customers/patients. In the case of the pharmacist refusing to carry bc meds he is doing so because of religious beliefs and therefore it has everything to do with religion. From my viewpoint he is discriminating on several levels here. There is no room for personal agenda when it comes to caring for the health of the population. Only objectivity (as much as possible that is) should rule.

I do agree with you that the freedoms we have in this country are precious and need to be protected. But discrimination and judgment against others lifestyle when you are in certain occupations should have no place here. Why is this pharmacist's freedom more precious than those he is sworn to serve and help?

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.

Pandora- your country is very similar to ours in that respect. The rich/well off who can afford private health care really do get a better quality of health care treatment. No matter how you may disagree I know that fact to be true. I have friends in the UK and though much of your health care may be free (and truly it is not free...high taxes for example) for many procedures/doctors you must pay for privatization of health care and that is only for those who can afford it. In that respect our countries are not so different...

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

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

I believe doctors should have the right to refuse to treat patients who choose not to be immunized in order to protect those who can't be.

My daughter contracted whooping cough at the end of last year and as it is a reportable disease I had phone calls from the health department and we had to contact several friends to inform them that we had unknowingly exposed them. One friend was heavily pregnant and the whole family had to go on antibiotics as a precaution. They were finished just days before the baby was born. Thankfully no one contracted whooping cough but all of this could have been avoided if people were vaccinated in the first place.

My daughter was vaccinated as a baby so I was surprised that an annoying persisting cough turned out to be whooping cough. The lady I spoke to at the health department said that the whopping cough vaccine is the weakest one available and only lasts for 6-8 years and then a booster is needed. (she is 11 so was due, but i had no idea that a booster was needed and its not on the list of vaccinations needed). She also said that whooping cough is so rife in WA at the moment that every single school is infected with it. The Dr treating my pregnant friend said that the disease had mutated and the current vaccine was no help against it anyway. Something that probably could have been avoided if more people vaccinated their kids!

However I don't believe that something that has the potential to cause harm (no matter how small the risk) should be made compulsory, even if it is for the greater good of the community.

Vaccines that have been around for many years make me less wary but when flu vaccines etc seem to hit the doctors offices in lightening speed it makes me wonder how safe they can be with so little time for testing. There was a bad batch of the flu vaccine that went out in Perth in 2010 that left one child with permanent brain damage and many other children were hospitalized causing the government to put an Australian wide ban on the flu shot for children under 5 years of age.

Gardasil is another vaccination that makes me wary. I don't believe it was trailed for long enough and there have been too many cases worldwide of debilitating side effects and I'm not sure I'll be allowing my daughter to have it when she goes to high school. If I was Forced to make her have it, I certainly wouldn't be happy about that.

 

[Gypsy]

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.

Laila, totally agree.
And that's why this is a PITA topic. Because EVERY TIME it comes up, they degenerate into the same thing.

As for net nannying, I'm not nannying anyone. I'm saying that this is a rehash pot stirring post that I'd be SHOCKED to find out Kenny was even READING, ad naseum that has lead to members leaving in the past. That's an educated opinion. So, I posted it.

I don't even have kids, and not likely to have any of my blood, so I have no skin in this game. But I do think, as an outsider, that people are NASTY in threads like this and that it doesn't serve ANYONE when the topic comes up except for those people who are always looking for an opportunity to belittle those to have made a different choice, for whatever reason.

The entire debate, boiled down is this: "Should people have a choice?"

The answer is either yes or no. That hasn't changed. And it won't. By all means though, let's go ahead and errode people's freedom to make CHOICES for themselves and their families based on their own beliefs. Cause that hasn't gotten us anywhere bad, ever.

 

[Circe]

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

The entire debate, boiled down is this: "Should people have a choice?"

Just out of curiosity - which people? The doctors choosing to protect their patient pool - or the people who've managed to put what looked like a sure-thing eradication of measles into a pipe dream because they had been fed misinformation and exaggerated fear-mongering?

Look, when it comes to bodily autonomy, I'm about as live and let live (or not) as is possible. I believe in everything from extreme body modification to abortion to assisted suicide. But we're not talking about people making their own choices. We're talking about social decisions that we undertake as a group - or herd, as it might be, because it's herd immunity that's at risk.

Damn skippy we should be talking about this. It's not quite like having another Tiffany debate - this one actually matters.

 

[justginger]

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

HOT, I remember both things you reference very well - there is actually a scientific poster up on the wall of my stairwell regarding the Pertussis boom. Walking through the corridors of PMH you could hear that dry, honking cough coming from all directions!

The flu jab recall was a nightmare. That was well and truly a debacle - they were so petrified of a pandemic of swine flu (honestly, at that point things were looking pretty rough with 6 deaths in Perth in less than a month, plus another 50 in the rest of Oz) that they pushed through an inferior product...one that hadn't even been trialed in its final form (can't believe TGA actually signed off on that!). The only fact regarding it that I've heard could possibly explain what happened is that SOMETHING contained latex - either the vaccine itself or the container it was packaged in. Regardless, latex sensitivities and allergies are not uncommon and this could explain why there were poor reactions. Working in a medical environment, I still elected to get it. My skin was noticeably red for at least 5 days following. I think at that point the Health Dept was seeing a real threat of dozens of deaths and did what they felt was necessary at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and I am concerned that decision may put people off flu jabs forever. Season flu jabs are NOT rushed through like the combo seasonal/H1N1 was - it takes the better part of a year to develop them, based in the most common and emerging strains of influenza traveling through Asia.l, and they are thoroughly tested prior to public use.

 

[FrekeChild]

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

Has anyone seen Contagion?

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

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

Thanks for the info justginger. I didn't realize it was the H1N1 vaccine that caused the recall. I thought it was an 'ordinary' flu shot. I understand why they rushed that through. I also opted to get it as they were offering at work for free and it was a quick walk over to the vaccine trial group at PMH to get it so I did. I got a bit of a rash on my arm from it, but that was about all. I'd never had a flu jab before or after that one. After working with kids for the last 10 years my immunity seems to be pretty good without it.

Do you know much about the Gardasil vaccine and if they are planning to improve / change it? I honestly haven't seriously researched it yet so I'm only going by what I've heard and I do have some reservations. If you can point me in the direction of any reputable literature it would be most appreciated.

 

[iugurl]

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

I have lived my entire life with the side effects, and have a myriad of heath problems that made it a miracle I even made it to adulthood, due to vaccines.

I am sorry you had to go through that. If you don't mind, I am quite curious. I have never heard of such horrible side affects from a vaccine before. Do your doctors know why you had such a reaction? Which vaccine caused your problems?

 

[justginger]

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

HOT, yes it was the joint seasonal + H1N1 that caused such a terrible reaction.

I truthfully do not know much about Gardasil, but I elected NOT to have it myself when getting it for free was an option. I don't see HPV as being much of a threat to public health, as the stat goes 80% of people have at least one strain of it in their lifetime...and the human population is hardly dropping like flies because of it. VERY few ever develop cancer from it, and with the current medical monitoring ability through Pap smears and colposcopies, prevention is easy. To me the risk of side effects is not worth the prevention of illness in this case, IYKWIM. I personally would NOT approve of my 9 year old daughter receiving it. I understand children become sexually active at a younger age than any of us would like to admit, but 9 is ridiculous. I imagine the average age of first intercourse would be around 15 these days? For my own child, I would hold off til that point. Let their bodies get over the spate of other (lifesaving) immunizations they've received in the meantime.

And like I said, I'm not sure how much public health value there is in ever immunizing against HPV. Even if you have it, your body generally clears itself in the matter of a month or two. Longer lasting ones might stick around for a year. Only a very, very small percentage are high-risk and nearly impossible for your body to clear on its own. In that case, it's a day trip to surgery and you have a CO2 laser treatment. I personally know at least 6 women in my life who have had this done, the infections subsequently cleared completely, and they've had clear Paps for the following X years. In order for these viruses to cause lesions that develop into full-penetrating cervical cancer, a period of YEARS without monitoring would have to pass. I think my OBGYN said that there is an average period of 4-6 years between CIN3 and invasive cancer. To me, the current ability to monitor and treat HPV-related health issues is sufficient to not necessitate a vaccination. But that is my opinion, for me. People who are very squeamish with GYN appts might feel differently.

 

[Gypsy]

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

The entire debate, boiled down is this: "Should people have a choice?"

Just out of curiosity - which people? The doctors choosing to protect their patient pool - or the people who've managed to put what looked like a sure-thing eradication of measles into a pipe dream because they had been fed misinformation and exaggerated fear-mongering?

Look, when it comes to bodily autonomy, I'm about as live and let live (or not) as is possible. I believe in everything from extreme body modification to abortion to assisted suicide. But we're not talking about people making their own choices. We're talking about social decisions that we undertake as a group - or herd, as it might be, because it's herd immunity that's at risk.

Damn skippy we should be talking about this. It's not quite like having another Tiffany debate - this one actually matters.

That's not true Circe. That's your perspective. It's how YOU are choosing to frame/define the issue. For some people it is a matter of personal choice. It's the same as the abortion debate. Some frame it as an issue of "right to life" and an issue that affects all of society because it is "murder" and against the interests of society as a whole and should be outlawed. Others frame it as a matter of the right of the individual to choice over bodily integrity.

Both sides can be "right" because the foundation of the belief's of each side is different, on the one hand is science and the other is religion. According to one belief system the other position is "wrong" and vice versa. So, really, both are "right" and both are "wrong". It's a matter of perspective. There is NO empirical "right" or "wrong" with these issues. That's why the debates exist and why they are so impassioned.

As for your question of who I am defining "people" as, I am defining it as both patients and doctors. Again, same as abortion for me. If I have the right to chose to HAVE an abortion, and doctor should have the right to chose to REFUSE performing one.

For me, it's the exact same issue. For you it's not. That doesn't mean you are right, or I'm right. It's a matter of perspective. Mine is just different from yours on this one.

That doesn't mean that I think those who want to refuse vaccines CORRECT in the sources they are basing their choice on. But for me that's irrelevant and a matter of education. The ISSUE is whether they should have the choice or not, regardless of WHY they want it. And I think they should. That doesn't mean that I would make the SAME choice. I wouldn't, I would vaccinate my kids. But that doesn't mean I feel it's correct to impose my will on them. Same as I wouldn't want someone who wouldn't CHOSE an abortion to impose their CHOICE on me. Being an individual, I want the right to chose. Even if my choice is "wrong" according to someone else's standards.

Who is to say "science" trumps "religion". Replace all the science in this debate with religion and politics. Just because I chose to worship science and feel that a fetus isn't a "life", and that vaccines are "safe" doesn't mean that I am empirically right. And just because some someone else religion says all vaccines are evil and abortion is murder doesn't mean that they are empirically right. The whole point of CHOICE is that it is based on your individual beliefs, no matter what they are. That individuals are different and that being different is OKAY.

For me it's interesting that you could favor abortion and choice and NOT agree that this is the exact same issue, just with different facts. TO ME, you are the one who is incorrect and frankly, inconsistent in your beliefs.

 

[Circe]

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

For me it's interesting that you could favor abortion and choice and NOT agree that this is the exact same issue, just with different facts. TO ME, you are the one who is incorrect and frankly, inconsistent in your beliefs.

I'll come back to the rest later, because it's intriguing, but since it's 4:30, a quick focus on this; what it comes down to is that I have a violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others. And I particularly dislike it when the fact that children are incapable of making their own decisions translates into parents being able to treat children as little extensions of themselves, as opposed to to parents seeing themselves as their children's caretakers. Poor ego boundaries are not a justification for institutionalized child abuse.

NYC just saw a couple of cases where, respectively, families took the Archdiocese and the city to court because the schools insisted its students be vaccinated against rubella, mumps, chicken pox - the diseases that spread quickly and can leave kids dead or disabled for their entire lives. They were offended that the schools had recommended their unvaccinated children stay home until it had run its course. They felt it indicated a lack of faith in the will of god. And they wanted to test that by exposing their kids to danger, deliberately.

I consider that to be exceptionally arrogant, to want to wave a flag of faith over your kid, who has no choice ... and worse yet, your neighbors kids.

Religion and science ain't the same, you know why? You put your faith in science, science gives you a quantifiable risk, and tells you, there is a 99.999% chance your kid will be fine, and lets you make the call. Faith says, trust me like Abraham did ... and trust that the angel is going to be there not just for Issac, but for all his little playmates, too.

If adults want to go unvaccinated, refuse transfusions, or dance on the mountaintops wearing copper armor and screaming that all gods are bastards, more power to them and pass the popcorn. When they impose those beliefs on kids (or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery.

 

[missy]

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

For me it's interesting that you could favor abortion and choice and NOT agree that this is the exact same issue, just with different facts. TO ME, you are the one who is incorrect and frankly, inconsistent in your beliefs.

I'll come back to the rest later, because it's intriguing, but since it's 4:30, a quick focus on this; what it comes down to is that I have a violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others. And I particularly dislike it when the fact that children are incapable of making their own decisions translates into parents being able to treat children as little extensions of themselves, as opposed to to parents seeing themselves as their children's caretakers. Poor ego boundaries are not a justification for institutionalized child abuse.

NYC just saw a couple of cases where, respectively, families took the Archdiocese and the city to court because the schools insisted its students be vaccinated against rubella, mumps, chicken pox - the diseases that spread quickly and can leave kids dead or disabled for their entire lives. They were offended that the schools had recommended their unvaccinated children stay home until it had run its course. They felt it indicated a lack of faith in the will of god. And they wanted to test that by exposing their kids to danger, deliberately.

I consider that to be exceptionally arrogant, to want to wave a flag of faith over your kid, who has no choice ... and worse yet, your neighbors kids.

Religion and science ain't the same, you know why? You put your faith in science, science gives you a quantifiable risk, and tells you, there is a 99.999% chance your kid will be fine, and lets you make the call. Faith says, trust me like Abraham did ... and trust that the angel is going to be there not just for Issac, but for all his little playmates, too.

If adults want to go unvaccinated, refuse transfusions, or dance on the mountaintops wearing copper armor and screaming that all gods are bastards, more power to them and pass the popcorn. When they impose those beliefs on kids (or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery.

100% agree with you Circe!! And as usual very eloquently written!

 

[iheartscience]

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

Fantastic post Circe! And of course ditto every word, although I never would have been able to put it so eloquently!

 

[HollyS]

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

"(or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery."

Pardon me?? Um, we immunize here in Texas, and Lord knows, we have a plethora of abortion clinics . . . so . . . your point would be?

I'm so glad that so many people have this ridiculous viewpoint of Texas as a whole. It means you won't be tempted to move here.

 

[Laila619]

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

The entire debate, boiled down is this: "Should people have a choice?"

Just out of curiosity - which people? The doctors choosing to protect their patient pool - or the people who've managed to put what looked like a sure-thing eradication of measles into a pipe dream because they had been fed misinformation and exaggerated fear-mongering?

Look, when it comes to bodily autonomy, I'm about as live and let live (or not) as is possible. I believe in everything from extreme body modification to abortion to assisted suicide. But we're not talking about people making their own choices. We're talking about social decisions that we undertake as a group - or herd, as it might be, because it's herd immunity that's at risk.

Damn skippy we should be talking about this. It's not quite like having another Tiffany debate - this one actually matters.

That's not true Circe. That's your perspective. It's how YOU are choosing to frame/define the issue. For some people it is a matter of personal choice. It's the same as the abortion debate. Some frame it as an issue of "right to life" and an issue that affects all of society because it is "murder" and against the interests of society as a whole and should be outlawed. Others frame it as a matter of the right of the individual to choice over bodily integrity.

Both sides can be "right" because the foundation of the belief's of each side is different, on the one hand is science and the other is religion. According to one belief system the other position is "wrong" and vice versa. So, really, both are "right" and both are "wrong". It's a matter of perspective. There is NO empirical "right" or "wrong" with these issues. That's why the debates exist and why they are so impassioned.

As for your question of who I am defining "people" as, I am defining it as both patients and doctors. Again, same as abortion for me. If I have the right to chose to HAVE an abortion, and doctor should have the right to chose to REFUSE performing one.

For me, it's the exact same issue. For you it's not. That doesn't mean you are right, or I'm right. It's a matter of perspective. Mine is just different from yours on this one.

That doesn't mean that I think those who want to refuse vaccines CORRECT in the sources they are basing their choice on. But for me that's irrelevant and a matter of education. The ISSUE is whether they should have the choice or not, regardless of WHY they want it. And I think they should. That doesn't mean that I would make the SAME choice. I wouldn't, I would vaccinate my kids. But that doesn't mean I feel it's correct to impose my will on them. Same as I wouldn't want someone who wouldn't CHOSE an abortion to impose their CHOICE on me. Being an individual, I want the right to chose. Even if my choice is "wrong" according to someone else's standards.

Who is to say "science" trumps "religion". Replace all the science in this debate with religion and politics. Just because I chose to worship science and feel that a fetus isn't a "life", and that vaccines are "safe" doesn't mean that I am empirically right. And just because some someone else religion says all vaccines are evil and abortion is murder doesn't mean that they are empirically right. The whole point of CHOICE is that it is based on your individual beliefs, no matter what they are. That individuals are different and that being different is OKAY.

For me it's interesting that you could favor abortion and choice and NOT agree that this is the exact same issue, just with different facts. TO ME, you are the one who is incorrect and frankly, inconsistent in your beliefs.

Beautifully said, Gypsy.

It's ironic, Circe, that you say you have a "violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others"...because what Gypsy wrote is spot on--this is exactly about choice. It goes both ways. The doctor can CHOOSE to fire the patient. And the patient can CHOOSE to follow his/her beliefs and do what they think is best for their child. To say we shouldn't make decisions on behalf of our kids is silly--as parents, that is our job.

 

[Circe]

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

"(or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery."

Pardon me?? Um, we immunize here in Texas, and Lord knows, we have a plethora of abortion clinics . . . so . . . your point would be?

I'm so glad that so many people have this ridiculous viewpoint of Texas as a whole. It means you won't be tempted to move here.

Sorry - I meant the recent proposed bills concerning abortion (which are by no means a done deal). I was on the verge of saying Virginia before I realized theirs had been struck down: it wasn't intended as a slight against Texas proper, just the recent spate of nation-wide legislation. Apologies for being unclear.

It's ironic, Circe, that you say you have a "violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others"...because what Gypsy wrote is spot on--this is exactly about choice. It goes both ways. The doctor can CHOOSE to fire the patient. And the patient can CHOOSE to follow his/her beliefs and do what they think is best for their child. To say we shouldn't make decisions on behalf of our kids is silly--as parents, that is our job.

And, again, apologies for being unclear - I thought I'd managed to communicate that my problem with unvaccinated children in a doctor's waiting room or a classroom was that it made the decision to take that risk on behalf of other people's children. Teach me to post at 4 in the morning ....

 

[ksinger]

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

"(or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery."

Pardon me?? Um, we immunize here in Texas, and Lord knows, we have a plethora of abortion clinics . . . so . . . your point would be?

I'm so glad that so many people have this ridiculous viewpoint of Texas as a whole. It means you won't be tempted to move here.

Sorry - I meant the recent proposed bills concerning abortion (which are by no means a done deal). I was on the verge of saying Virginia before I realized theirs had been struck down: it wasn't intended as a slight against Texas proper, just the recent spate of nation-wide legislation. Apologies for being unclear.

It's ironic, Circe, that you say you have a "violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others"...because what Gypsy wrote is spot on--this is exactly about choice. It goes both ways. The doctor can CHOOSE to fire the patient. And the patient can CHOOSE to follow his/her beliefs and do what they think is best for their child. To say we shouldn't make decisions on behalf of our kids is silly--as parents, that is our job.

And, again, apologies for being unclear - I thought I'd managed to communicate that my problem with unvaccinated children in a doctor's waiting room or a classroom was that it made the decision to take that risk on behalf of other people's children. Teach me to post at 4 in the morning ....

S'OK, Circe, you were only one state off. If you want to point at a state and go eewwwwww, Oklahoma and it's knuckle-dragging state legislators are here to be your example. Everyone's screaming about Virginia. Rank amateurs. Try OK on for size.

http://www.remappingdebate.org/map-data-tool/growing-set-state-abortion-restrictions-visualized?page=0%2C0

 

[Ella]

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

Last warning. Stick to the topic and away from politics or religion or the thread will be closed.

 

[Gypsy]

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

For me it's interesting that you could favor abortion and choice and NOT agree that this is the exact same issue, just with different facts. TO ME, you are the one who is incorrect and frankly, inconsistent in your beliefs.

I'll come back to the rest later, because it's intriguing, but since it's 4:30, a quick focus on this; what it comes down to is that I have a violent dislike of people making decisions on behalf of others. And I particularly dislike it when the fact that children are incapable of making their own decisions translates into parents being able to treat children as little extensions of themselves, as opposed to to parents seeing themselves as their children's caretakers. Poor ego boundaries are not a justification for institutionalized child abuse.

NYC just saw a couple of cases where, respectively, families took the Archdiocese and the city to court because the schools insisted its students be vaccinated against rubella, mumps, chicken pox - the diseases that spread quickly and can leave kids dead or disabled for their entire lives. They were offended that the schools had recommended their unvaccinated children stay home until it had run its course. They felt it indicated a lack of faith in the will of god. And they wanted to test that by exposing their kids to danger, deliberately.

I consider that to be exceptionally arrogant, to want to wave a flag of faith over your kid, who has no choice ... and worse yet, your neighbors kids.

Religion and science ain't the same, you know why? You put your faith in science, science gives you a quantifiable risk, and tells you, there is a 99.999% chance your kid will be fine, and lets you make the call. Faith says, trust me like Abraham did ... and trust that the angel is going to be there not just for Issac, but for all his little playmates, too.

If adults want to go unvaccinated, refuse transfusions, or dance on the mountaintops wearing copper armor and screaming that all gods are bastards, more power to them and pass the popcorn. When they impose those beliefs on kids (or, if we want to include abortion, other adults, since we've moved beyond parental consent and into ... well, Texas), that is when I get ornery.

Sorry Ella.

Circe-- I'm surprised you aren't seeing the flaw in the above logic.

That's ALWAYS been the problem with giving people a choice about anything: there will be people who abuse it.

In order to respect the forum policies I will not draw a comparison to abortion again, but it can be done and very easily.

Anytime you give society a choice there is ALWAYS some segment that will abuse that choice.

The question becomes-- to we punish the majority and take away their rights just because a FEW nutjobs/ amoral/ignorant people do abuse this.

That's what law enforcement is for, if these parents were really willfully putting the lives of their children in danger -- that should be addressed through Child Welfare Services or the police. It doesn't mean that we pass legislation punishing parents who ARE making a choice based on their LEGITIMATE beliefs/ experiences just because we don't AGREE with their choices or their beliefs.

You said nothing above that changes that fact.

Again, it's your perspective. And I don't agree with you that in THIS CASE the public interest is so compelling that it outweighs the individual's freedom of choice. That's all it boils down to for me.

 

[VapidLapid]

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

I think doctors are completely within their rights on this. I am imagining a likely scenario where a Dr will be sued for malpractice by a no vaccination family when their child dies of polio or rubella or distemper. They totally have the right to protect themselves, their families and their practices, and this way they can do that and make their point to the no vacc parents about how much they believe in this. Further, why would any parent want their children being cared for by a physician whose training and ideas they do not agree with?

 

[radiantquest]

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

My mother refused the Whooping Cough vaccination for me. *Showing age here* This was in the early 80s and she said that there was a lot of news about babies being paralyzed for life from Pertussis. She was paralyzed for 3 days when she got hers.

Most vaccines are necessary and I understand that, but I think that a mother should have the right to decide what chemicals their child is injected with. If a mother has a good reason why she doesn't want her child vaccinated then the pediatrician needs to step back and let the choice be made.

Recently I have noticed that Whooping Cough may be spreading again. I am debating on whether or not to get the adult vaccination. I have never been one for those things. I have never had the flu and never had the flu shot either.

 

[aljdewey]

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

I fully support a doctor's right not to accept unvaccinated patients into his practice.

The major benefits of vaccinating far outweigh the very minimal risks, and it would be extremely difficult to meet the "first, do no harm" portion of their oath by exposing his remaining patients to his unvaccinated patients.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

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

I was avoiding this thread since I pretty much agreed with Gypsy's assessment of the futility of discussing this, but I had to come back to say one thing.

Gypsy...you nailed it in your Feb. 26th post. You really did.

 

[mrs taylor]

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

Wow.This is nuts to me.
where I am from,vaccinations are mandatory.You can't enroll your kids in school without it.But that's not the big problem,the point is that you risk troubles with the social workers if you don't.There is a list of all the kids born and living in every province,and for every age group there a few mandatory vaccinations,that are free,but that you can't refuse to have.
there are also a few that are optional (like the one for meningitis,because it only cover the less dangerous type of the disease anyway,and it's one of the few vaccines that caused the most problems afterward.),and for those you have to pay,but everything else is free,paid by national health care.I've heard of people not doing the optional vaccines,but everything else is mandatory,and no one would ever dream of not getting them!Talk about putting everyone else at risk

Where are you located?

If you live in the US it's patently false. it's NOT against the law to vaccinate and social workers can NOT harass you on the basis that your child isn't.

not only that but I'm fairly sure every state in the US has exemptions for vaccines. Children CAN and DO enter school without them, even public school, if they have filed some such exemption.

 

[allycat0303]

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

Mrs. Taylor,

As Asu wrote the word "Province" in her post, she most definitely does not live in the United States.

In the province of Ontario (CANADA) it is required by LAW.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/immun/immunization.html

Although Asu may not be from Ontario, there are provinces in Canada that do require vaccination, unless an valid exemption is provided. From experience the ONLY exception which is accepted is severe and proven allergy to vaccines.

 

[Echidna]

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

The flu jab recall was a nightmare. That was well and truly a debacle - they were so petrified of a pandemic of swine flu (honestly, at that point things were looking pretty rough with 6 deaths in Perth in less than a month, plus another 50 in the rest of Oz) that they pushed through an inferior product...

Ironically, I contracted H1N1 (I think while overseas for a conference) and when I came back to Bris, stayed away from work and went to the doctor, she told me I wasn't sick enough to have Swine flu and gave me an asthma inhaler. A week later I spent an evening in hospital on fluids because I couldn't keep down a glass of water; I felt like calling her and asking whether I was sick enough by then to convince her I was the first on the flu register that season and it was definitely H1N1. Where was my petrified health professional? *insert joking moral outrage here*

Back to scheduled programming...

 

[chemgirl]

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

Mrs. Taylor,

As Asu wrote the word "Province" in her post, she most definitely does not live in the United States.

In the province of Ontario (CANADA) it is required by LAW.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/immun/immunization.html

Although Asu may not be from Ontario, there are provinces in Canada that do require vaccination, unless an valid exemption is provided. From experience the ONLY exception which is accepted is severe and proven allergy to vaccines.

Exactly, I don't know if they still do it this way, but I have a yellow card that served as proof of vaccination. It had to be included in the application package whenever I changed schools. The only kid I knew who didn't get vaccinated had a severe allergy to eggs. He had to have special forms of certain vaccines and couldn't get all of them. Otherwise there were no exceptions.

I had to submit the card before starting an internship at a hospital while a student. Also had to do a TB test etc. That type of thing is taken very seriously here.