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 5

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post

 

Oooh, fast on the edit.

 

If you wish to discuss it with me more, you are welcome to PM me. :)

 

No worries. was thinking about what I posted while doing the dishes and realised it was a bit snarky. And I made such a resolution to stick to the facts and not get personal. Goes to show how hard it is, and how we all have to really think through all our posts. 

post #82 of 127

In the US, a nurse practitioner is different from an RN.  School nurses are usually RNs, not nurse practitioners.  I think this bill would have a different feeling if we were going to be educated by the health department rather than by a medical doctor.  A private medical doctor would be acting against his financial interest by signing the form, because the fewer vaccinated patients he has, the less profit he makes from vaccines (doctors are given bonuses for higher vaccination rates from the pharmaceutical companies).  

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

So I didn't mean a school nurse, but a nurse practitioner in a school health centre. I guess that's subtly different? 

 

 

post #83 of 127
I'm not sure that it's accurate that doctors get paid for vaccinating more people. I have heard from several doctors that is not the case.
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not sure that it's accurate that doctors get paid for vaccinating more people. I have heard from several doctors that is not the case.

I have been told that they are given bonuses by the vax manufacturers but a quick Google only showed HMOs paying bonuses... (if you can consider Dr Sears a good source, I know some think he's biased).  One of the arguments against this bill is that doctors won't sign because insurance won't let them, maybe that's what they mean.

 

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/do-doctors-have-financial-incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

post #85 of 127
I have heard the HMO thing, which makes more sense, but I wonder at the amount of money involved. I've also heard doctors lose money on giving vaccines.
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 Given Mothering's informed consent stance on vaccinations, and that the aim of the bill (as stated by it's author) is to improve informed consent for vaccination in CA I'm surprised it isn't better supported here.

 

One problem for me is that it is *mandatory* informed consent.  

 

Another problem is that the information I get about vaccinations from our doctor's office is pretty one-sided.  While our ARNP is open-minded, and no one gives us a hard time about our current status, still, they don't really say a whole lot about the issue except the standard information.  I have learned so much more from both vax and non-vax folks here on MDC than I ever heard at the doctor's.  (You ladies are awesome doing all the footwork for me!) So, I doubt that it could count as truly informed consent, the kind that MDC supports.

post #87 of 127

I think MDC supports "informed decision making" in regards to vax... informed consent does not exist in the US for vaccines... maybe some areas are better than others, but when loss of medical care, loss of employment, loss of access to daycare/schools, and/or relocation are the results/options of selective/delayed/non vaxing, I don't see how that level of consequence/coercion can = true "informed consent."  (nevermind smaller hassles and threats - possible cps threat/involvement, hassle/bullying/misinformation at ER, drs, schools, money/time loss in finding suitable hcp, etc.)

 

Quote:
Except for during clinical trials, there is no Federal requirement in the United States for providing informed consent regarding the administration of vaccines.
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

One problem for me is that it is *mandatory* informed consent.  

 

 

Do you need to do it if you don't use the public school system (home school, or go private?). I thought not, but I'm ready to be corrected. If I am right, then it's technically not *mandatory* informed consent, only informed consent required before you can use certain public services.

 

There's an interesting set of informaton on worldwide vaccination policies on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy 

post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Do you need to do it if you don't use the public school system (home school, or go private?). 

 

Vaccine requirements apply equally to both public and private schools. In California, a homeschool is considered to be a private school.

post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Do you need to do it if you don't use the public school system (home school, or go private?). I thought not, but I'm ready to be corrected. If I am right, then it's technically not *mandatory* informed consent, only informed consent required before you can use certain public services.

There's an interesting set of informaton on worldwide vaccination policies on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy 

Homeschooling requires a stay-at-home parent, which is a tremendous financial burden for the majority of parents. It's also pretty much impossible for immigrant families, where neither adult speaks much English.

Private schools are likewise a financial burden, and can cost up to $20,000 per year just for day rates.

It's "mandatory" if punitive repercussions are in place, which, of course, they are.
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayareamom View Post

 

WARNING TO ALL CALIFORNIA PARENTS RE: AB2109:  I have received word that this Bill will also seek to require homeschooled children be included under this new mandate, should it be chaptered into law.  So for those of you who homeschool, you're not off the hook!  GET THOSE PHONE CALLS PLACED AND/OR FAX YOUR REPRESENTATIVES listed above.  Additionally, if you are in Sacramento (or close by), please consider going down to the Capitol on April 17th for this Bill's hearing.  

 

-Kim

From the OP.  I am curious where she received her information.  The bill states "institution".  

 

I still don't think that it's relevant whether or not HSers would not be required.  The vast majority of kids are placed in schools, and their parents shouldn't not have to choose HSing just avoid the whole rigamarole.  That's not a much of a choice and it's still pretty coercive and definitely condescending.  

 

It is a good question, though, what , makes signing an exemption form from the school district less coercive than a trip to the doctor's office to get a speech and a permission slip.  Parents who get grief from school officials about their vax status probably already see that set up in that light.  Lines are tricky to draw, and pretty wibbly-wobbly when they are drawn.  But this bill definitely crosses over that line.  It is an extension of the paradigm that leads to parents becoming second class citizens because they have children.  

post #92 of 127

Homeschoolers would have to comply with AB 2109, because according to existing California law, a homeschool is a private school.

 

I agree that it is not relevant whether homeschoolers would be affected, but the fact is, they would be.

post #93 of 127

  It's true there is no way to opt out of this bill.  If you homeschool, you are required to keep the same records as any private school in California.  If the Board of Health finds out you don't have the proper waiver in your paperwork, you are in trouble.

post #94 of 127
How is it informed consent to discuss my choice to not vaccinate with a doctor? The majority of doctors are not experts on vaccinations, and are regularly not very well-read when it comes to new research. 
How many parents have done *their* research before submitting their children to vaccinations? How many of the doctors who vaccine proponents here feel are adequately qualified to give unbiased risk-benefit information, give this same information before vaccinating their patients? 
 
This bill gives a lot of power to the medical establishment, it is truly frightening. In fact, after reading this thread, I'm a bit weary of moving back to the US. A few months ago I spoke to an attorney regarding a vaccine waiver for myself as an immigrant, and she told me that there are several states which are moving towards stricter exemption legislation (don't have any specifics on that though).
 
I do wish that the final outcome of all this will be a strong counter reaction and the US will do away with this silly, unconsitutional requirement to vaccinate altogether. It's simply unethical for the "public" to require parents to subject their children to possible harm. 
post #95 of 127

"AB 2109 passes Senate Health 7-1" on June 27, 2012

http://www.facebook.com/groups/385230668174221

Facebook page for "Californians in Support of AB 2109"

 

post #96 of 127

If you live in California and wish to write to your senator with your concerns, here is the text of the letter I sent to my senator.  Please feel free to use any part of it:

 

I am writing to you with my concerns about AB 2109 and its impact and legality.

 

This bill will not prevent an outbreak of disease. The noted whooping cough outbreak happened in a vaccinated population.  The measles outbreak, also cited as a reason for this bill, will not be prevented because parents have the right to exempt their children from vaccinations. Please consider this before you vote for this bill.

 

How can the state make us pay for an appointment to get a form signed for an exemption we already have? While I understand the goal of the bill, I do not understand how the state can make anyone pay for NOT getting vaccinated.  It is tantamount to a fine and that is unconstitutional. 

 

Please ask Dr. Pan who will pay parents for the office visit required for the exemption form?  I see that school districts and local agencies will be reimbursed. How will the state reimburse the parent?  

 

I hope someone from your office finds out how this bill prevents disease outbreaks and how parents will be reimbursed before this comes before a floor vote.  The bill needs to be amended to include this provision if you expect parents to comply so school districts won't have a truancy problem.

 

=====================

 

Even if you support this bill, parents should not have to pay for an office visit just to get the form signed. It should be free.

post #97 of 127

I totally agree, ajsmom. I know some states require a parent to go to the health department to get the exemption form, and then the nurse there gives them a lecture, and some states require parents to watch a video. But that is all free. 

 

If this passes, it will simply be an inconvenience to me, because I know I would be able to find someone to find the form, and we can afford it.

 

But what about a low income parent who lives in an area of California without a large choice of providers? I really do think that there will be parents who really don't want to vaccinate, but end up feeling like they have no choice.

 

I'm also wondering how the state can require a Christian Scientist to pay a medical provider in order to listen to a lecture on the dangers of disease.

post #98 of 127

We've debated the low income point before on this thread. A variety of health practitioners can sign the form, and it will be available at state run (free) vaccination clinics, and school's which have nurse practicioners on staff. So there will be no more cost to low income families to get this form signed than to get he vaccines themselves. 

 

Demographics in any case show that most non-vaccinating families have higher than average income.  

post #99 of 127

Low income people, in all likelihood, would have to miss work (not free) to take their children on the bus to and fro (not free) or taxi to and fro (not free) or pay for parking (not free) to have this done. Nothing is free.

 

And simply because someone makes more money doesn't mean they should be forced to spend it on something that is a silly waste of time.

post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

We've debated the low income point before on this thread. A variety of health practitioners can sign the form, and it will be available at state run (free) vaccination clinics, and school's which have nurse practicioners on staff. So there will be no more cost to low income families to get this form signed than to get he vaccines themselves. 

 

Demographics in any case show that most non-vaccinating families have higher than average income.  

 

 

Yes, we have debated this point before on this thread.  School nurses do NOT have the authority to sign off on a vaccination form.  Schools do not employ nurse-practitioners, who have extensive training beyond the registered nursing degree, and who therefore command a significantly higher salary. They employ RNs, usually on a part-time basis.
 
Parents struggling to earn a living cannot afford to pay a copay (assuming they have insurance) for every child every year of school, nor can they afford to take time off work for such appointments for a healthy child who does not need further examination, nor do they have time to pick up an exemption form at a state-run vaccination clinic (where they will likely be subjected to heavy-handed exhortations to vaccinate) and then take the form to a doctor who can sign the form.
 
It is not necessary to see a doctor to receive a vaccination. It's not even necessary to make an appointment. You can go to any Walgreen's, Target, K-Mart, or drugstore chain pharmacy department and receive a vaccination, without any counseling whatsoever on reaction risks. They will not ask if you have had a previous reaction; they will not tell you that vaccine-induced seizures can occur WEEKS after the vaccine; they will not tell you that vaccines can trigger autoimmune disorders; they will not tell you that 2000 cases of vaccine-induced brain damage have been admitted and compensated by the US government.
 
It is discriminatory and punative to expect someone to see a doctor and receive a lecture (and some high-pressure sales tactics) in order to opt out of an invasive medical procedure.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › CALIFORNIA BILL AB 2109 - URGENT