Isn't being fat the same thing as going against medical advice? Last time I checked, most doctors weren't advising people to be fat.
Should Doctors be Allowed to Refuse Treatment if Parents Won’t Vaccinate? - Page 5
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...
I just want to add one point.
When you really analyze it, what they are mandating for schools and doctor care alike is that a specific set of products (vaccines) be PURCHASED (
What this is really about is profits. Not health. Not teaching students. Not healing sick people. Not (as they pretend) minimizing diseases, or (the subject they pretend doesn't even exist) minimizing vaccine reactions.
It's about a billions-dollar industry.
This is what is happening to my sister, in California, of all places. Not to mention, he had an extreme reaction to his vaccines and almost died. (he still has a permanent seizure disorder, that developed right after his shots) The neurologist reluctantly agrees they might not give him the DTaP again, as it is the most likely cause of the seizures compared to the other shots, but his regular doctor is kicking them out of the practice. They have been asking around and there are NO doctors within an hour that will accept a patient on his insurance. Not to mention, that if she even CAN find a doctor more than an hour away, she will have to pay for all the costs of driving that far, and they are struggling to make ends meet. She will most likely end up vaccinating him because she is being bullied even though she would rather wait a bit longer to give him the vaccines. It is her right to wait to do so, but the lack of doctors has taken away that right from her. When practices are getting paid for having all their patients vaccinated, this becomes less about the personal feelings of doctors and more about financial incentives they receive for getting 100% vaccine coverage.
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.
You're right SweetSilver, I did assume too much here. I do feel that the majority of those who want to kick people out of medical practices or refuse to take them as a patient are those who vehemently argue the safety and effectiveness for all people. But I completely see the point that some people simply support the doctors' right to choose who they see based on their beliefs above any other factors. I tend to lean that way too-- It would be nice not to have the government telling private practices what they can and can't do all the time. The less government interference, the better. This situation is just so tricky because in certain localities people get CPS called on them because they won't vaccinate, or because they don't go to the doctors etc. I just feel there can't be legislation enforcing us to go to doctors, but then not providing doctors willing to see us. I see this new problem as insurance related. The big insurance companies are giving incentives to practices for fully vaccinating their charges. Whether the government is pushing them to do that, or the insurance companies feel they will have less risk of paying out on VPD I have no idea.
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.
Thank you. I tried to say this earlier today, and the system would not cooperate.
If you're too fat because you are not following the diet and nutrition advice, by your logic you can be denied care. Also, if a doctor believes in birth control, say a max number of children being two, and prescribes birth control pills, can he deny care if you refuse the prescription? Again, by your logic, he can. In other words, if we make one type of discrimination allowable, then others can follow. And, there is no medical reason to discriminate against non-vaxers, since those vaxed may still contract a vpd!
Canada: That is exactly how they are funded. A portion of my taxes goes towards health care. I have a health care card. When I go to the doctor or hospital I show them my card, they send the bill to the government. Not everything is covered by health care - but most stuff is.
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/12/12 at 6:04am
"Damn it lady! How many times have I told you??? You're terminated!" BAM! "You were gonna die a slow, expensive death anyway, and you just annoyed me for the last time!"
Oh, so sorry.....
Forgive me for this completely inappropriate moment of levity......
In Australia most doctors are paid by a mixture of private and public funding although there are still the odd few who are fully govt funded. The way it works is that if you are low income or getting some type of govt pension then you have a health care card which means you pay nothing at the doctors and your Dr bills the govt. Anyone who is elegible for a Medicare card ( all Australian citizens) will get subsidised visits. So you pay out of pocket and then get a partial refund from the govt (sometimes this is processed at the Drs surgery or you can go to a Medicare office and get cash back or do it by mail). The amount you get back is a set amount and it is up to the Dr how much they charge above that. My GP charges about $65 for a standard visit and I get about $38 back. There are variations too - some antenatal visits are bulk-billed (ie govt pays for it all and I don't hand over any money) as are some follow-up visits for certain things. Many GPs will bulk-bill children under 5yo for all visits. My GP bulk-bills all children under 12yo. Some GPs will bulk-bill other health care providers although that seems to be getting rarer.
Specialists are a bit different. You can see specialists through the public system but the waiting lists may be long and you don't get to choose who you see. You can opt to see a private specialist and either pay out of pocket (usually a partial Medicare rebate) or, if you have private health insurance you will get most of your money back through them and Medicare depending on your level of private cover.
For example, I had my tonsils out privately. I paid $200 for the initial ENT consult, $400 excess for my hospital stay ( if we chose to pay for a higher level of private cover then I wouldn't have had to pay that) and, I think, about $400 for the anaesthetic fee. The ENT's fee for the actual surgery plus one follow-up visit in hospital and one follow-up visit in his rooms was about $1200 and was completely covered by my insurance + Medicare, I didn't pay for any of that. I could have had it done publically and it wouldn't have cost me a cent but the waiting list would have been much longer and I couldn't have chosen my surgeon.
For doctors to start saying "you have to do what I recommend or I won't treat you anymore" is coercion and manipulation and has nothing to do with informed consent.
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......
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.
I get it on the homeschooling front. I was just trying to pre-empt somebody saying, "Well, you could always homeschool." Forgive the rant, but it drives me crazy when vaccine skeptics say that in response to laws that attack exemptions. The fundamental right to informed consent should be available to every family, not just homeschooling ones. Anyway, I digress.
I'm arguing that whether they're in private practice or receive public funding, all doctors in WA and CA should be legally required to accept families regardless of vax status. These states have *forced* these families into paid, contractual relationships, and it hardly seems just to fore someone into a "service" that providers simply won't provide. If we're forced to go to school, teachers have to teach us even if we disagree with them philosophically or religiously. If we're forced to go to the doctor, doctors should have to treat us, (or in this case, provide the Bad Mommy/Bad Daddy consult), even if we disagree with them philosophically or religiously.
No. There is a "parenting payment" which is paid when your child is about 2yo if they have been fully vaccinated or if they weren't vaxxed you have to submit a CO form instead. But everyone can get it.
There are no health services contingent on vax status.
It's not even technically a "parenting payment." It's the Family Tax Benefit. Hmm. We're a family. We pay taxes. We should qualify without having to submit a CO form. To me, tax benefits and vaccination status should NOT be equated. What does my kids' vaccination status have to do with getting a family tax rebate? I don't see any requirements for adults to submit proof of boosters to receive tax benefits.
Sorry, just a sticking point for me, as a new-ish resident of Australia who didn't have anything similar in my home country.
Yeah, because over here anyway, the government is essentially saying, "Look, if you want this tax benefit, you have to do what we consider healthy." So, why not ask all people to submit a letter from their GPs attesting that they are non-smokers and that their kids live in a smoke-free home in order to receive said tax benefits also. I mean, if the government is so concerned about our health and is doing the carrot and stick routine.
To be fair, there are doctors that fire patients who wont quit smoking and who arent making strides to lose weight.
And I have no article for it, but I know my grandmother went through three separate oncologists who basically told her there was no point in treating her if she was going to keep smoking (she had lung cancer).