or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations ›  Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate? - Page 3

post #41 of 105

The Hippocratic Oath pleads "First do no harm"; hence, declining to continue a physician-patient relationship in such a situation can be construed as protecting from that harm the patients who do follow medical advice to vaccinate against preventable and potentially deadly childhood disease. From a business perspective (yes, unfortunately private physicians are business people, too), it makes even more sense to have a policy like that known to all patients; parents who choose not to vaccinate will not be dissatisfied when they learn the physician has a different philosophy then they do after the relationship has been established, and patients who do have their children vaccinated will feel the physician is adding an extra layer of protection.
 

post #42 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hondo17 View Post

The Hippocratic Oath pleads "First do no harm"; hence, declining to continue a physician-patient relationship in such a situation can be construed as protecting from that harm the patients who do follow medical advice to vaccinate against preventable and potentially deadly childhood disease. From a business perspective (yes, unfortunately private physicians are business people, too), it makes even more sense to have a policy like that known to all patients; parents who choose not to vaccinate will not be dissatisfied when they learn the physician has a different philosophy then they do after the relationship has been established, and patients who do have their children vaccinated will feel the physician is adding an extra layer of protection.

 


I wonder why the AAP doesn't see it your way?


In addition, would you support a pediatrician mandating titer testing of all of his patients, and then refusing to see any of them who are non-immune, vaccinated or not, and using the same reasoning as you displayed in your post? After all, a non-immune child could be more likely to spread illness.
Edited by emma1325 - 10/9/12 at 9:00am
post #43 of 105

"First do no harm" precludes vaccinations, then, which are recognized by the Supreme Court as being "unavoidably unsafe."

post #44 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

"First do no harm" precludes vaccinations, then, which are recognized by the Supreme Court as being "unavoidably unsafe."

I would agree.

 

Even if you believe vaccines are for the greater good - you are, essentially, taking a healthy child and giving them a medicine (with its inherent risks) they do not have an immediate need for.

post #45 of 105

Actually, preventive care IS considered treatment
 

post #46 of 105
What does a vaccine treat, exactly?
post #47 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

What does a vaccine treat, exactly?

 

Well vaccine preventable diseases. There's clear evidence that these are lower in groups of vaccinated children than in groups unvaccinated.

 

For example this comparison of the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren: Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 

That the unvaxed had more VPD was detectable because it was such a large effect. Other effects were not seen (possibly sample size, possibly because they don't exist). 

post #48 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Well vaccine preventable diseases. There's clear evidence that these are lower in groups of vaccinated children than in groups unvaccinated.

 

For example this comparison of the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren: Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 

That the unvaxed had more VPD was detectable because it was such a large effect. Other effects were not seen (possibly sample size, possibly because they don't exist). 

From the Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective where you brought up this piece of junk of a study up yet again. I am quoting taxi's awesome rebuttal, which I notice you didn't comment further on:

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Actually we had a thread discussing one a while back: 

 

 

Thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

 

Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 

 

The sample size really needs to be larger, but it appears to show there is not be a major difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed kids in terms of the chronic things they looked at (excema, asthma etc), while there is a obviously a detectable difference in the rates of VPDs. So to my mind that one demonstrates that ignoring VPDs unvaxxed kids are not significantly healthier than vaxxed, and including VPDs they are actually less healthy overall. 

 

 

I hope this will be repeated with a larger sample size. It is very important to keep looking for these effects, at the least to reassure parents they don't exist and there is no reason to avoid vaccines (except in rare cases of allergies to ingredients or other medical reasons to avoid them). 

 

That study was so seriously flawed, it's useless:

 

"Children and adolescents were defined as unvaccinated if at the time of the KiGGS survey no documentation existed for any vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, or rubella. By contrast, children who had by then received at least one vaccination according to their vaccination card were categorized as vaccinated."

 

In other words, an eight-year-old with, say, ONE vaccination in his life, would be in the same category as a 1-year-old who had received vaccines for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Hib, Hep B, polio, measles, mumps and rubella.  They would both be considered "vaccinated," and their health outcomes (prevalence of thingslike eczema, asthma, and other autoimmune disroders that can be triggered/caused by vaccines) would be lumped together in comparison with unvaccinated children.

 

That's a great way to get the perceived prevalence of such health problems down--add subjects to your group who would obviously have a lower prevalence.

 

Then compare 94 unvaccinated children with 13,359 children who have been given "at least one vaccine," with no stipulation as to the age when that (at least one" vaccine was received, nor how many others were given, how many were given at once, etc.

 

I didn't see any mention of what percentage of the 13,359 received more than one vaccine, nor did I see any mention of those who had been given hep B the day of birth, or those who had been given multiple combo vaccines on the same day. There was also no mention of which vaccines were preserved with thimerosal, or which vaccines contained alumunim.

 

I think I'd like to compare 94 children who have never been fed peanut butter sandwiches with 13,359 children who may have been fed one chicken breast cooked in peanut oil, may have been fed 1 peanut butter sandwich, may have  eaten peanut butter sandwiches every day, or may have had mothers who ate peanuts while pregnant.  We don't know how  many of the officially peanut-exposed children fit into which subgroup.  We also don't know if the 94 children came from mothers who ate peanuts while pregnant, or if they've ever eaten foods cooked in peanut oil.  We just know that they didn't eat peanut butter sandwiches.

 

Think that will give us accurate data on the relationship to peanut allergies and exposure to peanuts?

 

 

 

 

post #49 of 105

Vaccines are treatment like birth control pills are treatment. They prevent healthy ppl from medical conditions they don't want (though many pill users want to get pregnant someday, whereas most vaccinators don't want vpd's). nak.

post #50 of 105

One of my doctors is strongly advocating for a certain procedure (I'm still deciding).  I trust my doctor and trust that he honestly believes this is in my best interest.  If I decide against it, it may be somewhat uncomfortable.  I don't think either of us would get ugly about it, because neither of us is that kind of a person.  But it's my right to terminate the professional relationship if I find that it's become an elephant in the room and it begins to affect the relationship.  Why shouldn't he have the same right?

post #51 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Do adults have well checks. Oh I guess maybe they do in the US. In the UK we only see Doctors as adults if we're sick..... 

And now I think of it this would be really hard to implement. So maybe it's stupid anyway.....  smile.gif 

Some adults' professions require physical exams, but that's moot. Every day, lots and lots and lots of adults go to the doctor for lots of different reasons. And the sweeping majority are NOT up-to-date. I don't have the data on hand, but somebody posted on this recently, and it was only a one-digit percentage in the US. that had "all" of their vaccines.

Come to think of it, I wonder what medicine would look like if doctors started booting non-vax-compliant adults. Bye-bye business, I imagine...
post #52 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Well vaccine preventable diseases. There's clear evidence that these are lower in groups of vaccinated children than in groups unvaccinated.

 

For example this comparison of the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren: Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 

That the unvaxed had more VPD was detectable   because it was such a large effect. Other effects were not seen (possibly sample size, possibly because they don't exist). 

 



A vaccine does not treat a disease.  It may or may not prevent a disease in the theoretical case of exposure.  There are other, less risky, methods of disease prevention available.  If a parent chooses to utilize only the vaccine alternatives, a doctor should have nothing to say unless he or she is simply upset over lost profits.

 

Someone here mentioned birth control.  I think that is a perfectly good comparison.  If a doctor "fired" patients over their refusal to use birth control (when she is not actively trying to conceive,) on the basis that the data he supports says women who use contraception, thus avoiding unwanted pregnancies, have healthier more productive lives, how would this go over?

 

What if a doctor fired homosexuals for refusing regular HIV tests? 

 

Does a doctor have the right to fire someone because he or she refuses a specific preventative course of action?

 

The only reason they can do it to non-vaccinating families without a public outcry (such as one that would occur in the 2 situations mentioned above) is because it is politically incorrect to not vaccinate.  Period.

post #53 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

Vaccines are treatment like birth control pills are treatment. They prevent healthy ppl from medical conditions they don't want (though many pill users want to get pregnant someday, whereas most vaccinators don't want vpd's). nak.

but even birth conrtol has side effects to it, just like vaccines can have side effects....suppose the body rejects that kind of preventative treatment?  I have noticed over the years a lot of  immediately approved birth control options are now facing lawsuits.  They weren't shielded  by a congressional ruling that birth control injuries have to be payed out in a separate court--no we are hearing of independent atty's taking on these cases.  Unfortunately for someone who's body couldn't handle preventative vaccines, they have no option in regards to being afforded a lawsuit, because our congress took it away.  

post #54 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Some adults' professions require physical exams, but that's moot. Every day, lots and lots and lots of adults go to the doctor for lots of different reasons. And the sweeping majority are NOT up-to-date. I don't have the data on hand, but somebody posted on this recently, and it was only a one-digit percentage in the US. that had "all" of their vaccines.
Come to think of it, I wonder what medicine would look like if doctors started booting non-vax-compliant adults. Bye-bye business, I imagine...

and if that's the case, the herd immunity theory just got blown out the window

post #55 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

From the Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective where you brought up this piece of junk of a study up yet again. I am quoting taxi's awesome rebuttal, which I notice you didn't comment further on:

 

 

 

We had a huge thread debating the pros and cons of this study: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

 

The back and forth is all there. Yes it's a relatively small sample, doesn't alter the fact that even in that sample they showed there was a difference in VPD in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids (which was the point of posting it here). 

 

All the stuff about finding no difference in other health measures (allergies etc). I agree could use a study on a larger sample, but I still stand by the argument that if there were a massive difference (as there were in VPD) it would have shown up here.

post #56 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

"First do no harm" precludes vaccinations, then, which are recognized by the Supreme Court as being "unavoidably unsafe."

Where can I read more about this?
post #57 of 105
post #58 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

We had a huge thread debating the pros and cons of this study: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

 

The back and forth is all there. Yes it's a relatively small sample, doesn't alter the fact that even in that sample they showed there was a difference in VPD in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids (which was the point of posting it here). 

 

All the stuff about finding no difference in other health measures (allergies etc). I agree could use a study on a larger sample, but I still stand by the argument that if there were a massive difference (as there were in VPD) it would have shown up here.

 

But is getting a benign childhood illness so terrible? These illness may actually have a benefit to the human organism. For example, mumps protects against ovarian cancer. By vaccinating you are taking this benefit away from your daughters. Personally, I would have rather my daughters have mumps than ovarian cancer. The vaccine does not offer the same protection as it does not result in MUC1 antibodies which has been demonstrated to protect against ovarian cancer.

 

 

Clearly, mumps vaccination only creates anti-viral antibodies and would not lead to anti-MUC1 antibodies, which we show here require an active parotitis. If it is true that symptomatic mumps protected against ovarian cancer through an immune reaction, a logical consequence is that we might expect an increased incidence of ovarian cancer as symptomatic mumps parotitis infections have decreased through vaccination.

 
post #59 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

We had a huge thread debating the pros and cons of this study: 
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

The back and forth is all there. Yes it's a relatively small sample, doesn't alter the fact that even in that sample they showed there was a difference in VPD in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids (which was the point of posting it here). 

All the stuff about finding no difference in other health measures (allergies etc). I agree could use a study on a larger sample, but I still stand by the argument that if there were a massive difference (as there were in VPD) it would have shown up here.


And you would be fine using this study to reject vaccines if the findings were against them?
post #60 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post


And you would be fine using this study to reject vaccines if the findings were against them?

 

If they had found massive evidence for harm from vaccines (ie. the vaccinated children were significantly less healthy in other factors than the unvaccinated) I would be worried about that. But they didn't. 

 

I had not heard the idea that having mumps might help prevent ovarian cancer. I find that unlikely to be true, but I will research it further. 

 

Most of the time these diseases are mild childhood problems. But in some cases they are dangerous. I choose vaccination, not only to protect my children, but also as the community minded thing to do. Vaccination will result in less of these diseases circulating, and ultimately protect everyone (including immune suppressed people unable to get vaccinated) against these diseases. Just seems like the right thing to do to me.

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