or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › CALIFORNIA BILL AB 2109 - URGENT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CALIFORNIA BILL AB 2109 - URGENT - Page 2

post #21 of 127

Uhm, no, it wont' take away that right at all.  You're still the one that makes the decision.

post #22 of 127

I worry about low income families too - they should have the same rights as everyone to make an informed choice and have access to health care advice to do that. I wonder if some kind Doctors could be persuaded to do the counselling pro-bono in California for low income families. That would be a petition I'd get behind. Of course best if it became part of the free vaccination program I understand happens for low income families. 

post #23 of 127
Is it not just part of a regular well baby visit?
post #24 of 127
Quote:
 My point of view is that I like to take the advice of experts, but as advice. I would seek legal advice if needed, and I definitely took financial advice when we recently bought a house.

Have you consulted a state-licensed nutritionist before making decisions about which foods to feed your children? The issue is one of parental rights, period. It doesn't matter what you believe about vaccinations. Any type of health care decision could be substituted into this bill.

post #25 of 127
Except very few decisions have the same impact on public health as vaccination.
post #26 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Have you consulted a state-licensed nutritionist before making decisions about which foods to feed your children? The issue is one of parental rights, period. It doesn't matter what you believe about vaccinations. Any type of health care decision could be substituted into this bill.

 

I would definitely listen to advice from people with experience in all of those things. Doesn't mean I'd blindly do what they say, but I'd listen. How is this discussion about vaccines you would have with your doctor any different? Well apart from that your choices about not vaccinating your child impact other people's children (those allergic to vaccine contents, those unable to be vaccinated for other reasons, or those too young to have been vaccinated yet) by increasing the rates of VPD in the community. Your choices about what to feed your kids don't impact anything but their future health. 

post #27 of 127

double post

post #28 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 I see how it would be considered problematic in that light. 

 

 My point of view is that I like to take the advice of experts, but as advice. I would seek legal advice if needed, and I definitely took financial advice when we recently bought a house. So I don't really see the difference here. As Rrrachel says, this will not be a significant barrier to those of you who have researched and decided against having your children vaccinated, but will make people who have not spent the time stop and think about the choice. 

 

 The point with counselling/advice surely is that you don't have to agree with it, just listen to it and then do what you think is right. 

I understand the financial and legal advice, but that's you seeking it out on your own accord. This would be governmentally mandated, forced "advice", and that just makes me itch.

post #29 of 127

I would have much less problem with this bill if there were a provision for parents to go to the health department and get the counseling for free, with the requirement that the public health employee sign the form after the counseling, if the parent still wanted the exemption. A video at the county health department would be perfect.

 

It also seems strange that Christian Scientists will be forced to see a medical doctor.

post #30 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Uhm, no, it wont' take away that right at all.  You're still the one that makes the decision.

 

Sure, that's a nice platitude, but its not reality. If this bill passes my Doctor and I are the ones making the decision, because if s/he decides not to sign my form, then my rights are taken away. Then the parents are sent searching for a doctor who will sign off for them, spending time and money (visits co-pays) to be able to assert their "right.' 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I would definitely listen to advice from people with experience in all of those things. Doesn't mean I'd blindly do what they say, but I'd listen. How is this discussion about vaccines you would have with your doctor any different? Well apart from that your choices about not vaccinating your child impact other people's children (those allergic to vaccine contents, those unable to be vaccinated for other reasons, or those too young to have been vaccinated yet) by increasing the rates of VPD in the community. Your choices about what to feed your kids don't impact anything but their future health. 

 

She didn't ask you of you would listen to their advice, she asked if you would consult with them. Would you go out of your way to find a nutritionist and pay a fee to see them? And what if you were required to listen to their advice, whether or not you agreed with them? What if their signature was required before you could send your children to school? This is not about taking advice from your doctor and taking it or leaving it, it is mandatory. The idea that "it's just a discussion with your doctor, no big deal" is inaccurate and misleading. 

post #31 of 127

I think the signature just indicates that you talked to them, not that they agree with you.  If doctors use it to strong arm people into vaccinating I agree that would be inappropriate.

post #32 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think the signature just indicates that you talked to them, not that they agree with you.  If doctors use it to strong arm people into vaccinating I agree that would be inappropriate.

I'm not entirely sure for the bill in California - but for the bill in Washington that just passed the visit is used to strong arm people into vaccinating. The doctor does not have to sign off on the form. It's not just that you "talked to them".  I definitely disagree with it being left up to their discretion if they sign it or not. 

post #33 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think the signature just indicates that you talked to them, not that they agree with you.  If doctors use it to strong arm people into vaccinating I agree that would be inappropriate.

 

That's what it is. No one should have any illusions about it. This is not a "hey we had this talk" kinda of thing; it is absolutely up to the doctor on whether they choose to sign it or not, and it is a tactic for strong arming, absolutely. 

post #34 of 127

I guess I'm basing my opinion on what it actually says, not what I'm afraid it might mean.

post #35 of 127

Where in the bill does it say the physician must sign the form? I didn't see that anywhere. 

post #36 of 127

You can see the text of the actual bill here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.html

 

Excerpting the relevant part: 

 

 

Quote:
 This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2013, the
above-described letter or affidavit to be accompanied by a form
prescribed by the State Department of Public Health that includes a
written statement signed by a health care practitioner, as defined,
that indicates that the health care practitioner provided the parent
or guardian of the person, or the person, if an emancipated minor,
who is subject to the immunization requirements with information
regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health
risks of specified communicable diseases. The bill would also require
the form to include a written statement by the parent, guardian, or
person, if an emancipated minor, that indicates that he or she
received the information from the health care practitioner.

 

The bill says the letter is about making sure you have spoken with a doctor.  If doctors use that to try and strong arm people into vaccinating that is inappropriate.  However, that's not what the bill is for.  I think if you really can't work things out with your doctor to the point that they're willing ot sign the form it's time to get a new doctor, anyway.  I wouldn't tolerate a doctor who tried to bully me, period, regardless of what it was about.

post #37 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I guess I'm basing my opinion on what it actually says, not what I'm afraid it might mean.

 

 

 


I guess I've read too many bills in my day that said one thing and once passed, quickly became another. I guess I always try to see what the long term ramifications would be, and not take it all at face value since so much of what a law says is malleable behind closed doors.. 

 

post #38 of 127

I'm coming into this debate late in the game, but I am on the side that finds this type of legislation troubling.  Sorry, but I don't think it's still a freedom if you have to have a note from your doctor to legally make the decisions you think are right.  

 

And as to not overly troubling someone..... I've heard that kind of debate before on privacy issues and I don't think that is the point at all.

 

I have to head out on some errands, so sorry if I don't respond for a while.......

post #39 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think the signature just indicates that you talked to them, not that they agree with you.  If doctors use it to strong arm people into vaccinating I agree that would be inappropriate.

There is nothing in the law that requires doctors to sign the form after the consultation, or to even do the consultation in the first place. So there will be a lot of inappropriateness going on.

post #40 of 127

Let's not be naive or short sighted. The bill requires that I talk to my Dr about vaxes and have them sign off that we talked about it, this takes away my right to make this decision on my own as the parent of my children. The idea that Drs will not use this to coerce and influence is ridiculous to anyone who has spent time on these vax boards. There are stories all over about Drs who refuse to treat patients who don't vax or make the parents sign misleading and incorrect letters and waivers. Drs are already abusing their status without a law to back them up. The whole point of this bill is, implicit or not, that parents do not have the right or ability to make independent decisions regarding their children's health care. That is a very scary slippery slope!

 

While I agree that every parent/patient should have a Dr that listens to and respects their concerns and decisions, that is not the case. To say "well, just switch Drs" is an overly simplistic response that does not take into account the reality of health care for many. I ask again, what about the low income families whose choices are severely limited?

 

My personal experience: I am on Medi-Cal for maternity coverage since the insurance provided by my DH's job does not include it. I have two choices for a local hospital delivery (I have fast labors) and my choice for prenatal care is a "clinic" run by either hospital. At these clinics I will be seen by someone different for most if not all appointments. There is no attempt, on the Drs part, to develop any kind of relationship or rapport and/or openly discuss my options or rights. I considered switching to the other clinic, after my current clinic (where I see a resident) went completely against my wishes and ordered testing I had declined on more than one occasion. I called the other clinic to set up a consultation to see if my care might be better there and was told the "Dr's don't do those." So my choices, were stay with the clinic I am at or switch, totally blindly, to the other clinic and hope things would be better. I am staying with my current hospital/clinic b/c the have a better NICU and they claim to practice kangaroo care and push for and provide resources for BFing.  The point of sharing this is, even though it has nothing to with vaxes,  to show that the choices for low-income families are very limited in quantity and quality.

 

But what about the families who have private insurance? They also face obstacles in just switching drs, including: limits set by insurance providers (ie, in-network Drs), availability of choices in rural areas, distance to office and time spent waiting (very important considerations for most WOHPs), any special needs/ medical conditions that their children have, good Drs who are not accepting new patients or have long wait times to get an appointment,  etc...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › CALIFORNIA BILL AB 2109 - URGENT