Originally Posted by bakunin
I see the rest of the post was included later, great.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not complete the post at a later time.
I'll adress the points you make:
1. They are supposed to. Many times vaccine centers do conduct proper screening, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some centers they do not follow protocol. The parent can always stay informed and what's needed to know is available from several agency websites.
Are you even in the US? Vaccine centers? Most children get their vaccines at their well-child pediatric visits, with the rest getting theirs from their pharmacist at WalMart, Kmart, CVS, Rite-Aid, or even their supermarket. Some schools run vaccine clinics, as do some workplaces. NONE of them have access to family records if family members do not go there. They do not ask for family history of anything that might predispose the patient to vaccine reaction. They may ask about seizures or fainting, that's about it. They don't even ask about egg allergies any more.
The links of vaccines with all those conditions you state has been widely debunked. Scientific consensus is against it. I guarantee you will not find scientific consensus arguing that vaccines cause autism and all those other ones in post 40
Ah, there's your problem. You think the links have been debunked because you read headlines saying so. Tsk tsk tsk. You should know better. Even the FDA's official position is "we can neither accept nor reject a causal relationship between vaccines and autism." And of course they can't reject it; there are 70 studies suggesting a link, while the studies that you misunderstand as rejecting the link are severely flawed at best.
How can you believe that the link was "debunked" when you've ignored the 70 or so studies that strongly suggest a link?
Please do show us how vaccines do not cause "all those others" that you mention.
2. Your number 2 seems to imply that if you believe in something strong enough, you should not be held accountable if your beliefs lead to injury to someone else.
Funny, that's exactly what you are doing with vaccines. You either believe in them so strongly, or pretend to, that you think everyone should just submit to them--an invasive procedure that is recognized by the US Supreme court as "unavoidably unsafe."This is not the case. Recently, parents had problems with the law when they didn't take their infant to get medical attention in time. They thought that God would cure him. The infant died, and it was the second time it happened to these parents http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html
So you think that's a reason for the government to make medical decisions for everyone? I suppose you support the hospital personnel in Hershey, PA, who forcibly removed a newborn from the mother, because she QUESTIONED the need for a hepatitis B vaccine for the baby, who was not at any known risk for hepatitis B?
3. I don't think so. If someone has a legitimate medical condition which is accepted in medicine that person will most likely not have anything to worry about. No way the case would stand in court
Doctors disagree as to what constitutes a legitimate medical condition. Patients with medical conditions should not be forced to go from doctor to doctor to "legitimize" their medical condition, but that happens quite often. An example: according to the 2006 University of Chicago study, it takes an average of ELEVEN YEARS to get correctly diagnosed with celiac disease in the US. 11 years of going from doctor to doctor, being given useless medications that come with side effects, and eating gluten, which does more and more damage as the years go by.
4. Do you mean unsafe because the risk of side effects is not 0%? If not, the probability of serious injury is so low that most vaccines are considered safe.
Vaccines are considered "unavoidably unsafe" by the US Supreme Court. They are also considered unsafe by those who have had severe reactions, and by those who know people who have had severe reactions. People like you apparently live in ivory towers, and have no clue that others have severe reactions that go unrecognized and unreported. Or else you just don't care. It's starting to look an awful lot like the latter.
I didn't suggest anything. The bioethicist did. And his suggestion is worth discussing.
Why? Because the idea appeals to you? You like the idea of suing someone who doesn't believe in the government's mandating an invasive procedure while lying about the risks of that mandated procedure?
I guess that says a lot about you. Most of us were suspecting from your very earliest posts that you were pro-vaccine, which would have been fine, I guess. But your zeal for government-mandated medical treatment, whether appropriate or not, is extremely disturbing.