or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences - Page 8

post #141 of 412

Just to throw even more into the discussion, I think Caplan's argument is altered by the specific legislative avenues and compensation availability in each particular country.

 

In Australia, there is, as yet, no form of no-fault compensation for vaccine injuries. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians has asked the government to put one into place, but nothing yet. Sure, there is the brand new Disability Insurance Scheme, but that has to do with disability support in general and is not vaccine injury specific.

 

Or you could try and sue the manufacturers as Saba Button's parents are doing, but in that particular case, the vaccine manufacturer (CSL) states that, despite their product not having been trialled in children before roll out and despite the number of severe reactions reported and its eventual ban for children under the age of five years, their company is not liable for Saba's permanent injuries. They say liability lies with the government who did not notify the manufacturers in a timely manner of any issues with the product.

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/17845400/company-denies-fault-over-ill-baby/

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

 

I think Caplan's assertion that parents need to be held accountable and risk lawsuit for infecting others appears ironic from over here. How can a bioethicist demand that parents "do the right thing," when some countries, like Australia, don't have any programs in place for parents whose children were injured when they did what Caplan advocates?


Edited by japonica - 8/3/13 at 8:42pm
post #142 of 412

NO!  *YOU* just said the vaccine is not 100% effective!  So, if the vaccine is not 100% effective and that is how your child got sick, how do you prove that my child would not have gotten it even with the vaccine--or developed it FROM the vaccine, since MMR is a live vaccine, that can happen....and given it to your family ANYWAY?

post #143 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

For a while now in this thread the context of the discussion has been on MMR and DTaP vaccines. Caplan's statement does not really apply with many other vaccines.

 

The vaccines rates have gone down, especially for MMR and DTaP (DTP). As stated before, not dramatically so yet, but there is concern that this could be the case in a few years. For MMR 90% is already close to what's believed to be the limit for herd immunity. For MMR it's gone down more than 3% from its peak. Another way of seeing the issue is that for MMR, the rate has not been this low since 1995 (when it was a bit lower). For the DTPs rates 2009 was the lowest since 1994 and 2002 respectively. I'd like to be clear in that I'm not saying that the decline has been dramatic or that they will definitely lead to an issue, but nonetheless it is there and it could eventually lead to outbreaks of say, measles or pertussis

 

You statement is supposition and has not proven to be the case, at lease, where I live. My county has a fully vaccinated rate of 60%, that means 40% of children are either unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. The has been no major outbreak of measles in recent years. The last confirmed case was in 2006 in a 9 month old child, who traveled to Thailand and India. In 2012 there was suspected case in a 24 year old, but proved to be negative when tested. My city is affluent, educated and extremely health conscious, with alternative practitioners out numbering conventional ones.

 

So with such a low vaccination rate where are all those measles cases?

post #144 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

You statement is supposition and has not proven to be the case, at lease, where I live. My county has a fully vaccinated rate of 60%, that means 40% of children are either unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. The has been no major outbreak of measles in recent years. The last confirmed case was in 2006 in a 9 month old child, who traveled to Thailand and India. In 2012 there was suspected case in a 24 year old, but proved to be negative when tested. My city is affluent, educated and extremely health conscious, with alternative practitioners out numbering conventional ones.

 

So with such a low vaccination rate where are all those measles cases?


Actually no, my statement is not supposition and is based on the research. See some of the previous posts for some examples of the studies. But your argument comes from a common misconception of statistics. When the experts say that unvaccinated clusters are more likely to suffer an outbreak, this does not mean that a cluster will definitely suffer an outbreak in a short period of time. Furthermore, if you the cluster doesn't suffer an outbreak in a given period of time this doesn't mean that their more likely to suffer an outbreak on the next period of time (events on each separate period of time may be probabilistically independent). On the long run however, the probability that an unvaccinated cluster suffers at least one outbreak is likely to be high. Personally, I'm not sure what would be considered a period of time to be classified as long run in these cases, but that might depend on the disease in question, the vaccination rate, and some other factors (size of county, interactions with outsiders etc).
 I can't go into examples with the 60% vaccination rate. I'd be assuming this number is true. Do you have a reference? I'd be happy to crunch some numbers given a proper reference :)

post #145 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


When the experts say that unvaccinated clusters are more likely to suffer an outbreak, this does not mean that a cluster will definitely suffer an outbreak in a short period of time. Furthermore, if you the cluster doesn't suffer an outbreak in a given period of time this doesn't mean that their more likely to suffer an outbreak on the next period of time (events on each separate period of time may be probabilistically independent). On the long run however, the probability that an unvaccinated cluster suffers at least one outbreak is likely to be high. 

This sounds a little fear based and too theoretical for me.  

"Well, you have seen no outbreaks, there is no guarantee you will get one *next time* but it is coming, I swear." 

post #146 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

What's the country got to do with it. The human body works the same wherever you're from.

Really?  So the 1 in 23 rate of autism amongst the Somali population in Minnesota is a sign that the human body will work the same for everyone,no matter what you inject into it, and no matter what the individual genetic predisposition are like?

 

Yeah, that's REALLY scientific, there.

post #147 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

This sounds a little fear based and too theoretical for me.  

"Well, you have seen no outbreaks, there is no guarantee you will get one *next time* but it is coming, I swear." 


I'm afraid statistics is the best we've got in these situations with so many unknowns. As strange as the results sound statistics is useful. They are not fear based whatsoever. Decisions based on fear would not rely on the evidence. Like being concerned about adverse events that hardly ever occur (or sometimes are not scientifically linked to vaccines) :)

post #148 of 412
Again with the 'hardly ever'. That is not a scientific statement @ all. At best it is a vague opinion statement that is inherently undefinable.
post #149 of 412

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80

post #150 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Again with the 'hardly ever'. That is not a scientific statement @ all. At best it is a vague opinion statement that is inherently undefinable.


1 in a million really is hardly ever. After all, since the beginning of this thread we've been focusing on serious side effects. And the data shows that the serious side effects have that low of a chance.

 

Tell me dinahx, do you play the lottery?

post #151 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


1 in a million really is hardly ever. After all, since the beginning of this thread we've been focusing on serious side effects. And the data shows that the serious side effects have that low of a chance.

 

Tell me dinahx, do you play the lottery?

 

 

i think a more appropriate question would be: Do you play Russian Roulette?   Paper for paper is moot...

post #152 of 412

The Russian Roulette analogy would suppose that there's something like a 1/6 chance of DEATH from vaccines. Even the most hard-core anti-vaccine types seem to be a little more in touch with reality than that. 

post #153 of 412
I don't play the lottery because I wholeheartedly believe it is exactly what Dave Ramsey says it is: a tax on people who can't do math. I also don't believe in gambling in a very serious, yk, religious way, it is predatory on the hope of the poor.

Let me remind you that you have NEVER sourced '1 in a million' on here (I don't accept sourcing from someone's offhand position statement but only from an actual study establishing that number), not one time AND that you are definining serious NOT as say, GSK defines it, but only as 'catastrophic enough, with enough legal resources to be compensated by the US Government'. And actually only ProScienceMum was helpful enough to supply even that definition, which was not that well sourced.

Also you are only considering the chance of a serious adverse event from a SINGLE dose of a single vax, when they are rarely, if ever administered that way anymore. And not considering important variables like age/weight.
post #154 of 412
Because all firearms have a 6 bullet chamber? I am no expert, but I am sure they make larger chamber than that now that we are no longer in the Wild West.

I am not the one who made the analogy, but comparing a child's life to any sort of gambling game is obviously dramatically offensive.
post #155 of 412
Just a note also: can we stop using the outmoded term 'side effect'. A 'side effect' is really just 'an effect' except in some administrator's head. 'Serious adverse event' really captures the nature of what happens in a vaccine reaction much more accurately. Also, if the recipient experiences a 'serious adverse event' & that event is temporally related, they hardly have time in most cases to experience any non side effect, making the use of the term 'side effect' much more appropriate for medications with which there is going to be some immediate therapeutic benefit.
post #156 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

And the data shows that the serious side effects have that low of a chance.

 

 

"The data" is severely flawed.  When you have first-line health care professionals who neither recognize nor report serious side effects, you can't even legitimately CALL the fraction of events that are reported "data."  

 

If you really want to do a useful poll, you might try polling those whose cases were actually reported to VAERS, and find out how long it took for their reactions to BE reported.  

For most of us, it took months, even years for our doctors to realize that issues were either caused or triggered by vaccines.  Some of them immediately reported this, once they realized it, and some either assumed that it was too late to report, or didn't even know that they could/should report to VAERS.  

Remember, reporting to VAERS is strictly voluntary.

 

Anyhow, you can talk from now til the cows come home about "the data," but that doesn't change the facts.  The tobacco company executives, even now, insist that "the data" does not prove that cigarettes cause cancer.  We're rather used to industry representatives publicly toeing the line and chanting the company slogans; Industry lies repackaged as "the data?"  No longer convincing; too many industry whistle-blowers have exposed some of the lies, and too many non-industry researchers have published research showing long-term diseases triggered by vaccines.

 

It's downright laughable that you could, on the one hand, accuse vaccine critics of fear-mongering, and then turn around and spread Caplan's obvious intentionally intimidating, veiled threats of lawsuits for not vaccinating.

post #157 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


1 in a million really is hardly ever. After all, since the beginning of this thread we've been focusing on serious side effects. And the data shows that the serious side effects have that low of a chance.

 

 

 

No it hasn't.

 

1 in a million is a baseline generic figure, and is a number thrown around because it is easy.  It relates to the short term, severe and visible reactions only, usually anaphylaxis.   It misses anything more subtle, long term or stuff not 100 % provable (and the burden of "proof" is very, very high).

 

We also need some context - what does 1 in a million mean?  Is it 1 in a million per antigen?  Because the schedule has people receiving around 50 antigens by age 18.  50/1 000 000 = 1/20 000.  I/20 000 people having an accepted severe reaction is horrible (particularly with things like tetanus - when even if everyone did not vaccinate, the risk of tetanus is lower than 1/250 000 (figure from before vaccines) and probably closer to lower than 1/ million).   It probably isn't 1/20 000 either, as those who get one dose and have a severe, medically accepted reaction are probably not going to get other doses.  So: 1/20 000 -1/ 1 000 000 for whatever the percentage is of reactions the medical community accepts?  We have so much solid data on vaccine reactions (snark).


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/5/13 at 9:01am
post #158 of 412
With numbers it is either accurate or it is not. 1 in a million doesn't even represent VAERS reports or serious adverse events *as defined by the manufacturers*. One poster postulated that it represented cases that actually made it all the way through the Vaccine Court & were successfully compensated through the VICP. That assumes absolute justice & that all suspected cases were heard. Which we know they were not.
post #159 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

I don't play the lottery because I wholeheartedly believe it is exactly what Dave Ramsey says it is: a tax on people who can't do math. I also don't believe in gambling in a very serious, yk, religious way, it is predatory on the hope of the poor.

Let me remind you that you have NEVER sourced '1 in a million' on here (I don't accept sourcing from someone's offhand position statement but only from an actual study establishing that number), not one time AND that you are definining serious NOT as say, GSK defines it, but only as 'catastrophic enough, with enough legal resources to be compensated by the US Government'. And actually only ProScienceMum was helpful enough to supply even that definition, which was not that well sourced.

Also you are only considering the chance of a serious adverse event from a SINGLE dose of a single vax, when they are rarely, if ever administered that way anymore. And not considering important variables like age/weight.


Good for you for not playing the lottery. However, notice that when it comes to vaccines, your rationale contradicts the decision of not playing the lottery.

You do not play the lottery because the changes of winning are too low. Here probability of winning can be calculated exactly!! Therefore you have correctly concluded that you are better off keeping your money and investing it in something else.

 

Sidenote 1: Some in this thread question the 1 in a million chance of serious side effect estimate. But I've provided some scientific references in the past and requested people with doubts to do the same. Doubters have been unable to provide proper scientific evidence. For the sake of the discussion I will not discuss the estimate further and will only welcome people to look at the scientific references provided in earlier posts.

 

With vaccines, one must also compare the benefits vs the risk. Probability of getting infected with a disease or of serious side effect unfortunately, cannot be done exactly. But estimates exist and they are useful. Take the study published in 1999 that found that on average (over the study period) unvaccinated people were 35 times more likely to contract measles (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649). That reference provides a table with estimated incidence for vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. The findings are clear. For example in 1992 the incidence rate of measles among the unvaccinated children age 5-9 was 10.62/100000. In contrast the incidence rate of measles among the vaccinated children age 5-9 was 0.81/100,000. This is a big difference!!! Now contrast this with the incidence of serious side effect 1/1,000,000 Clearly, one is MUCH better off with the MMR vaccine.

 

I only provided the reference that I had in hand. CDC has some incidence numbers for 2008 and 2011 but no rates available like the paper provided. This likely does not take away much from the arguments provided above.

 

Sidenote 2: In the literature, both terminlogies: 'side effect' and 'adverse event' are used interchangeably. Most of the public are used to seeing discussions about 'side effects'. I see no issue in using them interchangeably.

post #160 of 412
They are not interchangeable.

1 in 1,000,000 absolutely has no reference in regards to MMR. WHO has some info on their website of serious adverse Rx, & in most cases it is more common than 1 in a million.

Contracting measles can't be compared to a serious adverse event from MMR, you would have to compare a serious adverse event from Measles to a serious adverse event from MMR.

Since WHO states that 10 million vaxes are given to US children/year, are you claiming that there are 10 serious adverse events per year?

I don't regard gambling @ the convenience store to that comprable to making a decision in a doctor's office . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences