or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › S/o lying
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

S/o lying - Page 2

post #21 of 83
If my pediatrician insisted my child needed a vaccine in spite of a previous reaction and refused to sign a medical waiver I would switch pediatricians until I found one that would.  That is a sign of a bigger and more fundamental issue/disagreement, IMO, and I would not want that person treating y child for anything, including vaccines.
post #22 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

If my pediatrician insisted my child needed a vaccine in spite of a previous reaction and refused to sign a medical waiver I would switch pediatricians until I found one that would.  That is a sign of a bigger and more fundamental issue/disagreement, IMO, and I would not want that person treating y child for anything, including vaccines.

You are correct that it is a sign of a bigger and more fundamental issue.  However, it can be extremely difficult for some people to FIND a pediatrician who is experienced enough with vaccine reactions to actually recognize one.

 

I was lucky enough that I did not need to switch pediatricians.

 

I know several people in the US who are not so lucky.  Their children have had vaccine reactions that their pediatricians were simply to ignorant to identify as such. They have had great difficulty finding pediatricians that will take their word for it, since the original pediatrician did not record the reaction.  And more and more pediatricians are adopting the policy of refusing to treat children unless they are fully caught up on vaccines.

 

As the OP brought up, the CDC/AAP position seems to be to bully the parent into complying with vaccines, whether or not they have a valid reason to request delaying or withholding vaccines.

 

Several of us have brought this subject up with you many times before, Abby.  When the pediatrician treating your child either doesn't observe the reaction with his/her own eyes, or whether (s)he doesn't believe that vaccines can cause such reactions, the result is that the parent is labeled unfairly, the child isn't treated appropriately, and a whole cascade of frightening, dangerous, and even life-threatening events can occur as a result.

 

For some people, the only recourse is to go for the religious exemption, because most of the time, they are therefore protected from the bullying ("sanctuary," if you will).  Some people feel that this is a lie; others feel that if they have a deeply held belief about the sanctity of the human body without unnecessary invasive "treatment," that is the equivalence of a religious belief.

post #23 of 83
Is that really the case, though, that they believe in the sanctity of the human body without treatment?  So they forego Tylenol, and antibiotics, and dental work, etc?  Or they just don't like vaccines?  Sometimes I wonder how people who think doctors are just corrupt shills for the pharm industry can bring themselves to get any medical treatment, at all.

The people that I know the don't vaccinate don't fall into this category, anyway, they've never vaccinated.  I think people who've chosen not to continue vaccinating because of a reaction are the overwhelming minority, but I have never found any good data on it.  I sure you know lots, but you probably move in circles where people whose children have had reactions are over represented.  This hypothetical is a secondary issue to me, because I don't think it describes the bulk of people misusing religious exemptions, anyway.

Lying is lying.  There's always another way, although it might not be as easy or convenient.
post #24 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Is that really the case, though, that they believe in the sanctity of the human body without treatment?  So they forego Tylenol, and antibiotics, and dental work, etc?  Or they just don't like vaccines?  Sometimes I wonder how people who think doctors are just corrupt shills for the pharm industry can bring themselves to get any medical treatment, at all.
The people that I know the don't vaccinate don't fall into this category, anyway, they've never vaccinated.  I think people who've chosen not to continue vaccinating because of a reaction are the overwhelming minority, but I have never found any good data on it.  I sure you know lots, but you probably move in circles where people whose children have had reactions are over represented.  This hypothetical is a secondary issue to me, because I don't think it describes the bulk of people misusing religious exemptions, anyway.
Lying is lying.  There's always another way, although it might not be as easy or convenient.

(bolding above mine)

 

Did you deliberately misquote me?  I didn't say "the sanctity of the human body without treatment."  I said, "the sanctity of the human body without unnecessary invasive treatment."

 

If you believe "lying is lying," why would you deliberately change my words to suit your argument?

post #25 of 83
I didn't intentionally change your words, I apologize if I misrepresented what you said.
post #26 of 83
There are risks to all medical treatments.
post #27 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

I think the above would be more likely that outright lying.  Also, I would find it more disturbing when a person lies while in a professional capacity.  The cornered-person analogy isn't a great parallel.  The better parallel would be someone in an official capacity asking a possibly damning question to someone who has come for assistance or because the law requires it.  I'm sure you can think of your own examples.

 

As an individual, and a mother, I would have no problem lying if I think the system is being unreasonable.  I jaywalk when there are no cars.  I refuse to pass conviction for laws I personally feel are unjust.  I have no problem with committing these technical infractions.  I *would* lie if I felt I had no better option.  In a professional capacity, I don't lie, wouldn't lie.  In those cases I represent something larger than myself, especially if I was in the position of a doctor or nurse on whom people rely.  If I disagreed with something, I might say that within context of the facts.

 

Agree or disagree with this distinction?

 

Very much agree!  I said something similar on the other thread.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

 

No shots = No school is a popular misconception.

Yes.  

 

I will give an example other than the one I mentioned upthread (as that does seem to be open to interpretation)

 

I work in a library.  Within the last month a women came in and needed to photocopy her son immunisation record.  She had been sent a letter from the school board stating that if she did not supply proof of immunisation, her son could be suspended from school.  While they did not lie outright, the form was certainly misleading.  Her son would only have been suspended from school for lack of forms if there was a outbreak of a disease  (which the letter failed to mention).  Moreover, the letter did not tell the mother that exemptions were available.  

post #28 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There are risks to all medical treatments.

 

There are no other medical treatments universally forced on children to enter school, where the only other options are move, stop working and homeschool, and/or "lie." 

Or in the case of healthcare workers - undergo medical procedure or lose job and/or career change.

post #29 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
 If a school is faced with the choice of having a student body vaccinated with chicken pox so that a kid comes to school they only infect 4-5 others or the choice to NOT vaccinate, in which case half the students might be out for a week or more with pox, it seems like the more sound policy and education choice is clear. That is obviously not the same decision making process you go through as a parent, though.
 

I think the logic in this is a little faulty.  Most people vaccinate because they want to.  I do not think vaccination rates would fall significantly if schools did not require exemptions.  

 

Canada is a great country to look to in this regard.  Canada has 3 provinces that require an exemption of some sort for school entry, and 7 that do not. 

 

I do not think there is a difference in VPD rates, or strong differences in immunisation rates, from province to province.  

 

I don't think the statistics support the need for exemptions, period.  

 

This is a suspicion at this point - I will see what kind of stats I can dig up.

post #30 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Is that really the case, though, that they believe in the sanctity of the human body without treatment?  So they forego Tylenol, and antibiotics, and dental work, etc?  Or they just don't like vaccines?  Sometimes I wonder how people who think doctors are just corrupt shills for the pharm industry can bring themselves to get any medical treatment, at all.
 

 

I was thinking about this when I was trying to decide if I would be lying if I claimed a religious exemptions.

 

I am not religious, but I can be spiritual.  I am a theist, I do not go to church, I do not belong to a specific religion.  I am pretty eclectic.

 

I do believe in a fairly wholistic approach to health care.  I have, however, been known to take an aspirin and my youngest was on antibiotics 2 months ago I have no qualms about either!  I do have qualms, though, with intervening with a person who is not sick.  Vaccines are the most handy example - I do think interfering in a healthy body when there is little threat of anything happening is not the way nature intended it to be!   Is that a spiritual thing?  I don't know.

 

I do know it would be very hard for another person to judge whether or not someone else's religious exemption was a lie or not. 

post #31 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

There are no other medical treatments universally forced on children to enter school, where the only other options are move, stop working and homeschool, and/or "lie." 

Or in the case of healthcare workers - undergo medical procedure or lose job and/or career change.

 

Kids at the local elementary school get into fights.  These happen somewhat regularly.  Kids hurt each other.  At my sons high school, a classmate was recently suspended for a month for drug trafficking.  He is back.  

 

Schools do not always do everything they can to keep kids safe.  Or, maybe they do, but it is not at the expense of a child going to school.

 

It seems a little hypocritical to have known children with aggression issues and drug dealers at school, yet simultaneously claim my kids can't go to school because they do not have a vaccine, when we all know the current threat of most (not all VPDs) is very little. 

 

edited to add: I would like to add that I personally have no issue with the school (or, better yet, the health unit) knowing my childs vaccine status.  If there is an outbreak of measles or pertussis, I would like to know so I can keep my kids out of school.  That is quite separate from whether exemptions should be necessary.


Edited by purslaine - 5/6/12 at 2:09pm
post #32 of 83

I have a bit of an issue with the way exemptions appear to be in the US, (as long as I am understanding it correctly). 

 

If you are a sel vaxer, and want to get dtap, ip, mmr, etc. and maybe not cp, hep a, hep b at young age, etc., you still need to file an exemption. 

 

The system does not allow you to truthfully report that your children are partially vaxed.

post #33 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

I have a bit of an issue with the way exemptions appear to be in the US, (as long as I am understanding it correctly). 

 

If you are a sel vaxer, and want to get dtap, ip, mmr, etc. and maybe not cp, hep a, hep b at young age, etc., you still need to file an exemption. 

 

The system does not allow you to truthfully report that your children are partially vaxed.

 

I have heard that as well.  I think it is really unfair.  For some people, they have to ask for a total exemption, or not bother at all.  It seems unfair for a child to miss school over measles (let's say) when they have had a measles vaccine, but could not declare it.  

post #34 of 83

my state only allows medical and religious exemptions.  although i stopped vaxing due to a reaction, i have not been able to get a medical exemption, so we claim religious exemption.  i don't think it is exactly lying, as I don't belong to any organized religion but I strongly believe my children should not be vaccinated...so I don't have a problem claiming it as religion (since i have to)!

 

However, I noticed that the official certificate does NOT state that we have a religious exemption.  It states that we have REQUESTED religious exemption; and I wonder about that.  

post #35 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

I have a bit of an issue with the way exemptions appear to be in the US, (as long as I am understanding it correctly). 

 

If you are a sel vaxer, and want to get dtap, ip, mmr, etc. and maybe not cp, hep a, hep b at young age, etc., you still need to file an exemption. 

 

The system does not allow you to truthfully report that your children are partially vaxed.

 

I think it depends which state you live in. In certain states with philosophical/personal belief exemptions, it's possible to be selective.  I live in a state that only has religious, so it's all or nothing although there are some ways around that.  Fortunately, the state makes it's own requirements rather than following the CDC, so it's not the full schedule.

post #36 of 83
Kathymuggle: a large group of unvaccinated children, particularly preschool aged, are not the children of educated parents who have made a concious and informed decision not to vaccinate. They are the children of poor and uneducated parents who either haven't bothered, didn't know enough to, or couldn't for a variety of reasons get them routine health care in the form of well child visits and vaccines. This population would absolutely be impacted by removal of school entry requirements. For some it is the only thing that forces their parents to get off their butt and get it taken care of. 

I have no doubt that anyone who really wants one can get a waiver. However, I think there are people who have to vaccinate for school or daycare who go out and get educated and decide they're ok with it when otherwise they might decide to skip it all together just to be on the safe side.

It woul be interesting to see how the different provinces compared or even different states.
post #37 of 83

This is slightly OT to what we are currently discussing, 

but I found a CHOP lie! (lie, or just slight inconsistency/distortion???)

 

Two different CHOP web pages:

 

 

1.http://www.chop.edu/healthinfo/whooping-cough-pertussis.html

 

Facts about whooping cough:

Although the disease can be prevented with the vaccine, it does still occur (because of the children who are not vaccinated).

 

2.http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/dtap-diphtheria-tetanus-and-pertussis-vaccine.html#pertussis

"Pertussis is unusual in that most children catch the disease from adults and not other children. It is estimated that every year in the United States between 600,000 and 900,000 adults and adolescents get pertussis!" 

 

Because, none of those 600,000-900,00 teens and adults could ever give pertussis to a child, or other teen or adult???

post #38 of 83
Pertussis is able to persist because vaccination rates aren't high enough to wipe it out (to be fair it would take extremely high vaccination rates for something like pertussis). So it's true that it's still around because of unvaccinated children, even though transmission is usually adult to child. 
post #39 of 83

Even if every.single.baby born for the next 50 years had pertussis vax on schedule, it would still be around. It is endemic, and current pertussis vaccines do not prevent transmission, wear off, and have not-so great efficacy. 

 

Non-vaxed kids are not the only reason for pertussis infection, quite UNLIKE chop is implying.

 

Vaxed people and kids get and spread pertussis. There are several threads recently about this. With plenty of links.

post #40 of 83
Yes, they do, but it's still true to say that if vaccination rates were high enough pertussis would die off.  Lots of things were epidemic that are now unheard of thanks to vaccines. Therefore, it is still around because of unvaccinated children. 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › S/o lying