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 4

post #61 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

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. 

 

 

 

Really? I thought this was widely know by those who research vaccines.

 

This is the study linked to in my post:

 

 

Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic association

post #62 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

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.

 

You would be worried..but would you reject vaccines based on the study?

 

Because it seems you are trying to say that parents should accept vaccines based on the study, despite the study's size and limitations.

post #63 of 105

It's alarming how many people think it's ok for doctors to refuse to see patients. They may be privately run doctors but they provide a public service. It's like saying that teachers can refuse to teach your children because they don't vaccinate to the full schedule (or at all)  Oh, wait, they actually do that in the **&^^^% state I live in. Refusing to see patients does NOTHING to improve patients health, in fact, it may endanger their health by making them unlikely to seek health care. How many people have eight hours of free time to take their kid to the ER to see if they have an ear infection etc.  Perhaps you would feel differently if you lived in a state that already controls people with such ridiculous legislations. There are two states that will not allow kids to go to school without a completed vaccination schedule. The last time I checked, I was the parent in charge of keeping my child safe and I get to decide whether I want my kid to have a flu shot, or a chicken pox shot, or gasp, an hpv shot. (which I am not sure if that one is required yet here, but if they decide to add it to the list, that means all parents MUST give it, or their children can not attend school)  You can't mandate that kids go to school and then make it impossible for them to attend. Or mandate that kids visit doctors but then make it impossible for them to find a doctor who will take them. I guess I should say you SHOULDN'T do that. You CAN, but you SHOULDN'T. All of you parents out there who say yes, it's ok, try to see the situation beyond your intense and irrational fear of catching something from some non vaccinated kid. This is not just an issue of vaccines. It's an issue of control.  One day, the control measure will be something you disagree with, and what are you going to do then? It is essential that you support non vaccinating parents on this, as it will be your freedoms on the chopping block next time...

post #64 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by americastamps View Post
All of you parents out there who say yes, it's ok, try to see the situation beyond your intense and irrational fear of catching something from some non vaccinated kid. This is not just an issue of vaccines. It's an issue of control.  One day, the control measure will be something you disagree with, and what are you going to do then? It is essential that you support non vaccinating parents on this, as it will be your freedoms on the chopping block next time...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you assume that those of us who agree doctors (private practice) have the right to refuse in this situation are actually pro-vaccine.  I am absolutely not in this category and have no fear from non-vax kids (*every* one of my kids' friends are non-vaxxed, and we have refused boosters entirely so far).  I would answer the same if I had been entirely non-vax.

 

If it was an issue of a publicly mandated control measure, I would disagree with it then.  But if it is the private, professional opinion that a doctor does not want to work with patients who disagree with something they feel strongly about, I support that however much I might disagree with the actual decision and the reasons behind it.

 

ETA:  I seem to have misread a little, but even after getting the point, I decided to keep this post.  I do disagree with public vaccine mandates.


Edited by SweetSilver - 10/11/12 at 8:14am
post #65 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by americastamps View Post

One day, the control measure will be something you disagree with, and what are you going to do then? It is essential that you support non vaccinating parents on this, as it will be your freedoms on the chopping block next time...


Yup - it's a slippery slope.

post #66 of 105

Exactly.  I vax, but I'm not "scared" of unvaxed kids.  I respect the right of a professional to set parameters for her or his practice, and terminating a professional relationship over a contentious issue should be a mutual right.  I have the right to choose a different doctor, and s/he has a right to choose a different patient if there is a disagreement that we just can't get past.

 

We are guaranteed a right to an education.  We are not guaranteed the right to see the doctor of our choice at our convenience.  The situations are not comparable.

 

(And since you asked, I did state upthread that it might happen to me.  Not over vaccines, but one of my doctors is strongly advocating for a procedure that I am unsure about.  It is possible that he will terminate me for noncompliance if I refuse.  I hope it doesn't come down to that, but it is entirely his right, just as it is my right to transfer my records and walk away if I find the pressure to be too much.)

post #67 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

We are guaranteed a right to an education.  We are not guaranteed the right to see the doctor of our choice at our convenience.  The situations are not comparable.

 

 

Actually, with compulsory schooling, we HAVE to send our children to school or face legal penalties for truancy, which can include fines and jail time depending on the state.  (To state the obvious, homeschooling is not an option for every family).

 

In two states--Washington and California--the situations *are* comparable because exempting parents now have to have a doctor sign off and give permission for philosophical exemptions.  (It's done under the guise of "informed consent," but they could just as easily have parents sign that they received some "educational" hand-outs).  In these states, at least, it should be ILLEGAL for doctors to turn away families based on vaccination status.  Otherwise, it *is* like a teacher refusing to teach your child. 

post #68 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


We are guaranteed a right to an education.  We are not guaranteed the right to see the doctor of our choice at our convenience.  The situations are not comparable.

 

What happens if - all - doctors nearby happen to refuse treatment due to their beliefs?  Is hospital the only option then?  What if the nearest hospital is far?

post #69 of 105

That's not likely to happen, especially since the AAP recommends against turning away unvaxed patients.  But if it does, it would be unfortunate.  You fight to protect your right to exercise your beliefs:  a doctor should be granted the same (except for certain situations covered by EMTALA).  We do not have a *right* to care from the doctor of our choice at our convenience.

post #70 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

What happens if - all - doctors nearby happen to refuse treatment due to their beliefs?  Is hospital the only option then?  What if the nearest hospital is far?

That is my concern.

 

To be honest, in an ideal situation I do not want a doctor who does not respect my choice as parent.

 

No everyone lives where there is a plethora of non-vax accepting doctors  Posters come on somewhat regularly complaining about not being able to find any doctor who will accept non-vaxxers. There was a post on this just this past summer….

 

Some people do live in rural and remote areas.  If there are only two doctors in town and both refuse non-vaccinating patients, that leaves children without medical care. No one though should be in the position of having to accept a medical procedure they do not agree with simply to have a doctor.  

 

I do think doctors who live in rural and remote locations do have a moral obligation to accept patients in the community they serve, unless the patient is aggressive.  If you want to pick and choose your clients, you should not live in an area where you are the only doctor in town.  

post #71 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 If you want to pick and choose your clients, you should not live in an area where you are the only doctor in town.  

 

Is it okay to say "if you want to pick and choose your vaxes, you should not live in an area where there is only one doctor in town"?

post #72 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

 

Actually, with compulsory schooling, we HAVE to send our children to school or face legal penalties for truancy, which can include fines and jail time depending on the state.  (To state the obvious, homeschooling is not an option for every family).

 

In two states--Washington and California--the situations *are* comparable because exempting parents now have to have a doctor sign off and give permission for philosophical exemptions.  (It's done under the guise of "informed consent," but they could just as easily have parents sign that they received some "educational" hand-outs).  In these states, at least, it should be ILLEGAL for doctors to turn away families based on vaccination status.  Otherwise, it *is* like a teacher refusing to teach your child. 

Homeschooling laws are based on truancy laws in WA, and compulsory attendance laws apply, technically anyway.  Just nitpicking.

 

Really?  They passed a law here that you need a doctor's signature for public school exemptions?  I am so out of the loop....  that sucks.

 

ETA:  That's an interesting argument.  I'll have to mull that one over......

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

What happens if - all - doctors nearby happen to refuse treatment due to their beliefs?  Is hospital the only option then?  What if the nearest hospital is far?

Not all preventative care practices are private practices.  Many are run by hospitals.  And yes, private hospitals.  There are many issues swirling around that, like our area hospitals and clinics under the umbrella of Providence, a private, Catholic entity (couldn't think of a better word--sorry!)  The other, a non-religious hospital, also runs clinics.  Our county hospital (publicly funded) has clinics.  My girls' HCP is a private practice.

post #73 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I do think doctors who live in rural and remote locations do have a moral obligation to accept patients in the community they serve, unless the patient is aggressive.  If you want to pick and choose your clients, you should not live in an area where you are the only doctor in town.  

Agree here.  (The trick is defining where rural and remote stops.)

 

To clarify, since I am generally disagreeing on this thread, I think that doctors shouldn't refuse.  I think that's wrong.  I am arguing about their right (or lack of) to do it.

post #74 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

Is it okay to say "if you want to pick and choose your vaxes, you should not live in an area where there is only one doctor in town"?

 

Very rough figures - 1% of the population is non-vax, up to 20% of children are sel/delayed or undervaxxed for one reason or another, and most adults are not up to date on their boosters.  Is the entire population supposed to move, go without medical care, or have their hand forced because a doctor is drawing a hard line and not allowing for personal choice?

 

It is not just about vaccines - it is about providing essential services.  If you live in an area where you are the only one who can provide an essential service, you have a moral mandate to do so, barring extreme circumstances.  

post #75 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

 

To clarify, since I am generally disagreeing on this thread, I think that doctors shouldn't refuse.  I think that's wrong.  I am arguing about their right (or lack of) to do it.

Personally, I do not think doctors or anyone for that matter should be able to refuse service based on someone else belonging to a "group" they do not like.    It smacks of discrimination.  I believe in laws that protect against discrimination.  

 

I think the whole "but they could give other people VPD's!" is weak, at best.  

 

1.  There are not that many VPD's floating around.  Flu, CP, pertussis excepted.  

2.  All sick people, vaccinated or not, can be screened for illness before landing in the waiting room should the doctor so desire.  My local hospital has patients who are coughing, sneezing, etc wear masks

3.  There are so many people who are more likely to spread illness than unvaccinated children - older people are more likely to be sick, smokers, immunocompromised, junk food eaters, the list goes on and on.  They are not typically excluded from medical care.  

 

At the end of the day, I just think doctors are ticked that people are not doing what they say. It is a control issue.  Years ago people were more likely to do what the doctor says - to defer to their judgement.  That is changing (somewhat due to the internet) and not all doctors like it.  Given the political climate around non-vaxxing, they can get away with excluding non-vaxxers.  It does not make it right - and I do wonder what will be next.  Those who refuse to medicate their ADHD children? Those who will not go on diets or stop smoking?  Etc, etc.  Doctors are paid to use their expertise and advise me, they are not paid to make decisions for me.  

post #76 of 105
nm 
post #77 of 105

Um, yes. Doctors have a right to choose their patients who don't accept their medical advice. They don't have a right to refuse care because they think you are too fat or the wrong race.

post #78 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

At the end of the day, I just think doctors are ticked that people are not doing what they say. It is a control issue.  Years ago people were more likely to do what the doctor says - to defer to their judgement.  That is changing (somewhat due to the internet) and not all doctors like it.  Given the political climate around non-vaxxing, they can get away with excluding non-vaxxers.  It does not make it right - and I do wonder what will be next.  Those who refuse to medicate their ADHD children? Those who will not go on diets or stop smoking?  Etc, etc.  Doctors are paid to use their expertise and advise me, they are not paid to make decisions for me.  

 

I agree, and I think a smaller subset of that group knows they don't know how to diagnose or treat VPDs anyway, so they would rather not take the risk.

post #79 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

Um, yes. Doctors have a right to choose their patients who don't accept their medical advice. They don't have a right to refuse care because they think you are too fat or the wrong race.

What if they tell you to lose weight and you don't?  Or suggest gastric and you refuse?  Should they be able to terminate you?

post #80 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I agree, and I think a smaller subset of that group knows they don't know how to diagnose or treat VPDs anyway, so they would rather not take the risk.


I really, really hope there aren't too many doctors doing that, because firing all the non-vaxxed patients doesn't mean they won't see or need to treat VPD's and that's a really unprofessional way for a doctor to deal with gaps in their knowlege anyways.

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?