or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences. - Page 5

post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiachu View Post

Have you read HIPPA at all? HIPPA prevents covered entities from discussing your healthcare information with a third party with certain exemptions. Not that someone cant require a health status for you to participate. You have the opportunity not to divulge that info and move along. Daycares are not a covered entity and are actually are well within their rights to demand vaccine compliance under the public health umbrella.

And I think people confuse "rights" with "things we don't think is fair".
You dont have a right to a particular daycare or doctor because you CHOOSE not participate in a vaccination program as outline by the rules of that facility. When I was younger I could not play soccer unless I provided a birth certificate and documentation that I had a physical and was fit to play. In the UFC players have to submit to testing of blood borne pathogens.

You can remedy your unvaccinated status regardless if it is your original natural state. There is nothing I can do to wipe my DNA of my black skin and African heritage and change the fact I came from a black woman's womb.

HIPAA, (note the correct acronym, ladies), requires patient consent prior to the sharing of personal health information. In most medical clinics, it's just announced that your info will be shared and sign that you received info about HIPAA.

Now consider this. All 50 states have vaccine registries, databases that track the vaccination status of children and adults. In many states, there is no-opt out provision. Where I used to live, you could opt out, but adults were unaware that they were entered in the first place, e.g. for flu shots. Registry information is available not just to providers, but also to daycare provider and public and private school personnel, including teachers and principals. I'm not comfortable with my own and my children's PHI being shared with such a wide array of people.

I argue that consumer health advocates can and should challenge these registries on the grounds they violate HIPAA, specifically the provision requiring patient consent before PHI is shared.
post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


By "public institutions," are you referring to schools and day cares only?

It would depend on the outbreak. If some kid gets pre-cancerous HPV, it's preposterous to send non-vaxxed teens home. Ditto on tetanus and even Hep A and Hep B. If pertussis comes to town, schools need to close their doors. Period. I don't care if vaxxed kids are getting a milder version. They can still bring that mild version to babies and other vulnerable people.

I do think that quarantines and even school closures give a false sense of confidence. There's a big, big world out there full of pathogens and transmitters in stores, workplaces, city buses, etc.

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.


Edited by ss834 - 2/15/14 at 8:25am
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 
I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

1- Yes, that was what was discussed.

 

2- I agree, and that's not a reasonable response IMO.  But I don't think anyone has to actually take the antibiotics if they choose not to.

post #85 of 106

Some examples in the US:

2008- Waldorf School closes and requires ALL students to take antibiotics before returning. "Those choosing not to take the antibiotic treatment will be kept out of school for the three-week incubation period." -http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6131662

 

2006 Measles outbreak in Boston, where "Hundreds of people at three workplaces have been ordered to stay home until they can prove they aren't susceptible or until they have passed the incubation period for the disease."  - http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2006/06/10/measles_outbreak_shows_a_global_threat/

 

2007 Measles outbreak in Ann Arbor "Now, district officials are telling all students who have not been immunized to stay home for 21 days." -http://blog.mlive.com/study_hall/2007/10/measles_outbreak_may_have_spre.html

 

2008 Voluntary 21-day quarantine for unvaccinated students: - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

post #86 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

 

I think this is a valid point.

 

Personally, I have no issues with my children being excluded from school if there is a genuine outbreak going on and if the science warrants it for that particular disease.  

 

I suspect that some non-vaxxers might disagree with me, although I am not sure. 

 

I will add this quarantine or exclusion on my part would be voluntary.  

 

For fun, I looked up involuntary quarantine and this is what the CDC has to say:

http://www.cdc.gov/sars/quarantine/qa-isolation.html

 

"Under the procedures required by the PHS Act, the list of diseases for which quarantine is authorized must first be specified in an Executive Order of the President, on recommendation of the HHS Secretary. Since 1983, this list has included cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. It was amended in April 2003 to include SARS."


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/15/14 at 11:11am
post #87 of 106
Quote:
~~I'm trying to figure out if we have anything else that is comparable to this as a society: "Do this medical procedure or else there will be social, educational, financial and health-access consequences."

yes, there are lots of examples of this and they relate to how one person's decision relates to the health of other people. Public health mandates people be treated for active infectious TB, you have to give contact information to public health if you have HIV and certain other infectious diseases. If you have confirmed measles disease, public health will be looking for contact information. Certain infectious disease require quarantines. Not all are infectious disease related though. Certain disease its not safe to drive or operate machinery. If you become blind and there is treatment and you refuse and you are a surgeon, no one is going to let you operate on them (not that its too likely!). Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public. Drug addicts can have their children taken away if not getting treatment. There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

Perhaps there is more back story to this thread than I know of, but I think the natural consequence of not vaccinating/Vaccinating is taking on the rick of disease/risk of side effects. People can decide for themselves. The unnatural consequence is that  public policy would remove an unvaccinated child from school during an outbreak, and quarantine a person with natural disease for the the benefit of the public. healthy populations are the entire point of public health policy.

post #88 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by babymommy2 View Post
 

yes, there are lots of examples of this and they relate to how one person's decision relates to the health of other people. Public health mandates people be treated for active infectious TB, you have to give contact information to public health if you have HIV and certain other infectious diseases. If you have confirmed measles disease, public health will be looking for contact information. Certain infectious disease require quarantines. Not all are infectious disease related though. Certain disease its not safe to drive or operate machinery. If you become blind and there is treatment and you refuse and you are a surgeon, no one is going to let you operate on them (not that its too likely!). Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public. Drug addicts can have their children taken away if not getting treatment. There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

 

I am not sure if you read this whole thread or not…but many of us differentiate between having an active disease and being at (possibly) a slightly higher risk of getting one.

 

Ex - If a person has  epilepsy and does not have epilepsy under control, they should should not drive.  Active disease.

 

Saying unvaccinated children need to stay out of school  (which I realise you did not say), though, would be like saying a person who had febrile seizures as a child and therefore has a slightly higher risk of developing a seizure disorder later in life should not be allowed to drive.  Or that anyone who ever drinks alcohol should not get a license because they have the potential to drink and drive.  

post #89 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by babymommy2 View Post
 

 Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public....There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

 

[edit mine]

 

I think you make a valid point.


However, I strongly take issue with your point about mental health "diseases" and the requirement to be on medication.  There is a very strong argument that many "mental health diseases" are actually easily-reversible issues with known causes; depression is one of many such conditions that has as root causes sleep deprivation, food allergies, vitamin D deficiency, lack of exercise, etc.  Many of these conditions, when combined with the psychiatric industry's medications, result in brain damage, sometimes permanent--just as use of illicit drugs can result in brain damage.

 

This is an issue where the pharmaceutical industry has caused more problems than they have solved, and these problems have become political and societal ones that are often misunderstood (to the profit of the pharmaceutical industry).

I know far too many people--mostly women, mostly mothers--who were diagnosed with depression when they were not clinically depressed, and/or given depression meds that caused an avalanche of both mental problems and health problems.

From what I am learning, this is more and more common in all demographics, but especially in children.


Sorry to go off-topic, but I do feel very strongly about this, and I believe that most people, unfortunately, believe the propaganda that the pharmaceutical industry puts out about "mental health" that is only there to sell prescription drugs.

post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


How big of an increase is this risk, though? Given everything that science has confirmed about the flu shot's many weaknesses, it seems fanatical and draconian to force it on hospital employees with the feeble rationale of "some protection is better than none."

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

that would be fine if the vaccine worked, it simply is not working

 

it's been pointed out several times on here and elsewhere about how problematic the vaccines is, you don't know you even have in most cases and you can still spreading it

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-flu/flu-shot-fail-why-doesnt-vaccine-always-work-n21446

post #92 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

 

 

First of all, it's ridiculous to compare the risk of side effects of a vaccine that doesn't work with the side effects of a disease that is overly-diagnosed (without lab confirmation).

Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

 

Why on earth would you expect or even want a health care worker to take on ANY risk when there is no evidence of efficacy?

post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

First of all, it's ridiculous to compare the risk of side effects of a vaccine that doesn't work with the side effects of a disease that is overly-diagnosed (without lab confirmation).

Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

 

Why on earth would you expect or even want a health care worker to take on ANY risk when there is no evidence of efficacy?

I feel it's "feel-good" medicine as in the recent study on the effectiveness of mammograms, no matter what, some people are under the impression ENOUGH isn't being done unless SOMETHING is done even if the evidence coming out doesn't support it - IF you don't vac all health care workers for EVERYTHING no matter what, you are not doing all you can, it's been said by others that support vaccines, you do until they say other wise, this is the best we know so far! - that is how I interrupt the post by erigeron

post #94 of 106
I am wondering if people just aren't responsible. What if a person could be liable for spreading disease? It would have to be for any disease, not just vpd. Obviously, it would be hard to prove, because then perhaps lab tests would have to be ordered etc. But, if there were consequences for spreading disease, then maybe the unnatural consequences wouldn't be so necessary. A friend told us she was sure her son had measles. Know what we did? We stayed home for three full weeks, even from the people who were exposed the same time we were. Not everyone did, and that upset me. I felt like they were being reckless. My dd was slobber sharing toys with the boy the day he came down with a fever. So, we stayed put. (And, no, we didn't get measles.)
post #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 


Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

 

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

post #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

I would like a broader study that also includes ICU, NICU, Hospice and general immunocompromised populations before I would make a decleration that the outcome is not changed and the vaccines doea not work at all.
post #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherFamily View Post

I am wondering if people just aren't responsible. What if a person could be liable for spreading disease? It would have to be for any disease, not just vpd. Obviously, it would be hard to prove, because then perhaps lab tests would have to be ordered etc. But, if there were consequences for spreading disease, then maybe the unnatural consequences wouldn't be so necessary. A friend told us she was sure her son had measles. Know what we did? We stayed home for three full weeks, even from the people who were exposed the same time we were. Not everyone did, and that upset me. I felt like they were being reckless. My dd was slobber sharing toys with the boy the day he came down with a fever. So, we stayed put. (And, no, we didn't get measles.)

 

People have brought up this liability issue with vpd's specifically. Why only vpds? I'm pretty sure it's because the preponderance of the evidence would have to show negligence, and presumably the laws would determine not vaccinating as a clear sign of negligence.

 

For other illnesses, it's difficult to show that the person who transmitted disease was negligent without legally defining certain acts as negligent. Being irresponsible (not washing your hands) just isn't legally punishable except maybe in some settings like food service or hospitals. Also, many diseases are transmissible before the person knows they have it.It would be too challenging to prove negligence unless specific actions were previously defined, and it was fairly easy to show that the act was committed. Failing to self-quarantine for 3 weeks after a possible exposure and without a government recommendation isn't unusually reckless-- as you witnessed, most people won't self-quarantine.

 

I think in some cases spreading STDs can be considered criminal assault if the person who spreads it has previous knowledge. That's obviously not comparable to a highly contagious airborne disease like measles.

post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

 

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

 



That's not a reason to dismiss it, particularly since the elderly and hospitalized patients are both vulnerable populations. What would be the relevant difference? I do think, however, that there is stronger evidence to cite in this context. This study also focuses on the elderly: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/09/analysis-finds-limited-evidence-hcw-flu-vaccination

Again, that whole it-sucks-but-it's-the-best-we-can-do argument, (reflected even in the article above), is not a valid reason to blackmail employees into consenting to vaccination.

ETA: If a HCW is ever caught neglecting to wash hands after using the restroom or between surgeries, I'd lead the charge to get that person fired. Neglecting hygiene in this manner is a surefire way to spread a LOT of different diseases. But for a vaccine that may or may not work on only 3-4 strains of one illness? Absurd.

When this scientifically controversial, forced vaccination has no place in health care settings.
Edited by Turquesa - 2/15/14 at 4:13pm
post #99 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

 



Agreed on the ABX. Whether or not the school closes, my vaccinated children would definitely stay home.
post #100 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 



I may change my mind later, but so far I agree with your post. smile.gif I never considered meningitis, but I do agree. The strain should at least be isolated in order to confirm whether or not it's vaccine-targeted.

But here's a "public institution" that no one ever discusses: Congress. 100% of state capitols are old and often poorly ventilated buildings. Senators, representatives, their staff, lobbyists, etc. are all working long hours in close quarters during cold and flu season. The real kicker? They're all passing vaccine-related legislation affecting children . . . all the while unaware that there is a big, fat vaccine schedule for adults, and that there is no "herd immunity" as long as they aren't doing their part. At very least, if they "believe in vaccines," as so many of them put it, shouldn't they be held publicly accountable to that statement?

My proposal? All people holding public office need to provide proof that they are up-to-date on CDC-recommended vaccinations. Those wishing to opt out will be subject to the same state laws that they impose on school-age children. I'll bet you bottom-dollar that you'll start seeing philosophical exemption in all 50 states. Sheepish.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.