Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations ›  Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate?

post #1 of 105
9/29/12 at 5:57pm
Thread Starter 
Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate?
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 105
9/29/12 at 6:09pm

Simply put:

 

                            **  NO  **
 

post #3 of 105
9/29/12 at 6:18pm

IMO? Yes. There is no "right" to be treated by a particular doctor. The patient should then find a physician who holds the same beliefs that s/he does.
 

post #4 of 105
9/29/12 at 6:25pm

bag.gif

I agree with mtiger. I don't like the idea of forcing someone to do something that makes him/her uncomfortable.

post #5 of 105
9/29/12 at 6:35pm

Absolutely. Doctors are private citizens running private businesses and should be left alone to accept only those patients they feel comfortable treating. 

 

And that poll is useless. The only 'yes' answer was for those who are pro-vax.

post #6 of 105
9/29/12 at 7:22pm

Yes, except for emergencies -- a family doctor should be able to terminate a patient relationship, but an ER doctor shouldn't be able to refuse to set a broken leg.

post #7 of 105
9/29/12 at 7:34pm

Doctors terminate patient relationships for a host of reasons, including failure to follow a care plan repeatedly, failure to show (or show on time) for appointments, etc. Doctors should not be required to see a specific patient. As a writer, I can write for people and then choose to reject any future assignments if the working relationship wasn't a good fit. I would hate to think of being required to do so just because I'd once accepted work.

post #8 of 105
9/29/12 at 7:41pm

Yes, if they have a private practice. Doctors go to medial school and spend years of their lives studying and practicing before becoming a paid doctor. Why should they have any less of a choice about their clientele than lawyers, accountants, or psychologists? 

 

In emergencies, or in small towns where there are no other options, I can see there being exceptions, but for the most part I think doctors should be able to choose who they see. 

post #9 of 105
9/29/12 at 8:50pm

What if you substituted some other invasive, unnecessary, and risky medical procedure for vaccines, and then asked the same question?

Should doctors be allowed to refuse treatment if parents refuse to let them remove a healthy child's tonsils?

 

Let's remember that it wasn't too long ago that doctors routinely removed children's tonsils.

 

Women with depression were often treated by being given a hysterectomy.

 

Wisdom teeth are still surgically removed "before they cause problems."

 

Yep, modern medicine is certainly consistent.

post #10 of 105
9/29/12 at 9:32pm

Yes, unless it is an emergency.

 

Doctor routinely fire non compliant patients. 

post #11 of 105
9/29/12 at 10:08pm

Yes, except for emergency situations. 

post #12 of 105
9/30/12 at 1:11am
I think no actually. Although I think it's reasonable to segregate them from the normal well child check waiting rooms.

For me the pro argument would be about trust. If you dont trust your doctor to have your best interests at heart, and you can't come to agreement over treatment/preventative measures, then there's probably a deeper problem. I can potentially agree with a doctor refusing to continue to treat someone who repeatedly rejects their medical advice..... But thats bigger than just refusing vaccines.

Of course this is a real concern of privilege too. Many people have no choice over a doctor who could/would treat them.
post #13 of 105
9/30/12 at 1:54am
No. Just like I also think that pharmacists should not be able to refuse to dispense contraceptives, etc, because they have a personal objection.
post #14 of 105
9/30/12 at 8:18am
Yes doctors should be able to refuse to treat patients who they don't feel will benefit from their care due to incompatible beliefs and refusal to follow treatment plans, including refusal to vaccinate. They are a private business and they do have a lot of choice over who they see. Many doctors also refuse to see more than a certain number of patients and refuse to accept patients without insurance unless they have cash upfront so there is not really an expectation that the doctor you pick will also pick you. Doctors In an emergency a doctor shouldn't be able to refuse care in the er but I think that is already a law if I remember correctly.

I agree that pharmacists shouldn't have a right to refuse to fill a medication though. Refusing to give prescribed medication isn't something I see as a long standing right whereas refusal to continue to treat a patient in the first place is.
post #15 of 105
9/30/12 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Yes, if they have a private practice. Doctors go to medial school and spend years of their lives studying and practicing before becoming a paid doctor. Why should they have any less of a choice about their clientele than lawyers, accountants, or psychologists? 

 

In emergencies, or in small towns where there are no other options, I can see there being exceptions, but for the most part I think doctors should be able to choose who they see. 

 

 

I agree with all of this.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post

No. Just like I also think that pharmacists should not be able to refuse to dispense contraceptives, etc, because they have a personal objection.

I disagree with this if it is a private practice.  Our state went round and round with this recently regarding a pharmacy in Olympia.  In the end, they made legislation that supported the pharmacist's objections, but required pharmacists to refer clients to a pharmacy that could help them. 

 

I don't think the two are the perfect comparison.  One is refusing a patient because they have a prescription for a medication (usually the morning-after pill) that they disagree with and won't carry.  The other is refusing a patient because the parents refused treatment the physician thinks is necessary.  

 

Regardless, those in the medical profession are not entirely public servants.  Some are, others aren't.  If they aren't they should be able to make those calls according to their conscience and professional opinion.

post #16 of 105
9/30/12 at 8:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Yes, except for emergencies -- a family doctor should be able to terminate a patient relationship, but an ER doctor shouldn't be able to refuse to set a broken leg.
I agree with this if we add another caveat: if there isn't another doctor within 20 miles or so, then the doctor should not refuse patients on the basis of vax status.
post #17 of 105
9/30/12 at 9:02am
Thread Starter 

i'm just wondering when the Hippocratic Oath added that vaccine status must be up to date in order for an md to treat someone......

post #18 of 105
9/30/12 at 9:09am

I think there is a difference between offering assistance to someone with an acute need and offering well-patient care.  I also think it is different when there are no other options in the area.  In remote areas, even a private practice doctor becomes a de facto public servant and should make decisions accordingly.

 

But I get the frustration.  I got some heat when I took my dd to the emergency room at Children's Hospital and was curtly informed that because I refused the flu vaccine, my otherwise on-schedule dd was not "up to date".  I can only imagine how that visit skewed the statistics.....  I'm not even sure what that had to do with why we were there.  And I do consider myself lucky that our girls' PCP is so open and understanding now that I have refused their booster shots.

post #19 of 105
9/30/12 at 10:11am

No.  Where I live, doctors are paid for with my taxes.  I am not Ok with them refusing service for some Canadians when all Canadians pay for healthcare.

 

I also do worry about children being left without healthcare.  Who wants that?  There have been threads on here where posters complain that all the doctors in  a reasonable distance will not accept non-vaxxers.  It can leave children without care for what is their parents decision.  Vaccines are only a small part of healthcare - to refuse to see kids based on this one aspect seem punitive to me.  I wonder if they also refuse to see kids whose parents smoke, kids who live on twinkie diets, etc?  I sincerely doubt it.  In my mind it is a form of discrimination to refuse to see some people over their health choices - yet are willing to see others on health choices that are often worse, but not as controversial and media driven.

post #20 of 105
9/30/12 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

No.  Where I live, doctors are paid for with my taxes.  I am not Ok with them refusing service for some Canadians when all Canadians pay for healthcare.

 

I also do worry about children being left without healthcare.  Who wants that?  There have been threads on here where posters complain that all the doctors in  a reasonable distance will not accept non-vaxxers.  It can leave children without care for what is their parents decision.  Vaccines are only a small part of healthcare - to refuse to see kids based on this one aspect seem punitive to me.  I wonder if they also refuse to see kids whose parents smoke, kids who live on twinkie diets, etc?  I sincerely doubt it.  In my mind it is a form of discrimination to refuse to see some people over their health choices - yet are willing to see others on health choices that are often worse, but not as controversial and media driven.

That makes sense.

 

 

 

 

There are no doctors within about 40 miles that will accept unvaxxed children, aside from public health clinics. I have to drive my kid almost an hour to her (awesome) ped. 

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations ›  Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate?