Who is the priority?

[wallacesmum]

The CDC acknowledges that the risk of contracting most VADs is less than the risk of the vaccines for the individual. They think this is due to vaccinations, and endorse ongoing vaccination to sustain "herd immunity."

Some of us here don't vaccinate our kids or ourselves. Some of us do few and slowly. Some of us do most or almost all. However, we are all interested in the debate over this safety, efficacy and necessity of the shots. I suspect most of us agree that the majority of parents vaccinate without having done very much, if any, real research on the subject, and have been fed some level of fear-mongering from pediatricians and other "experts."

So, are there ethical issues that arise when doctors and nurses administer these vaccines to parents who they know fall into those latter categories of ignorance and/or fear? Does vaccinating an individual child WHEN THE RISKS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, which is what the CDC is effectively saying, violate the Hippocratic Oath?

[MeniacleBrat]

Logically.... yes, it does. Doctors not actually reading the inserts to the drugs they are injecting into their patients (simply taking the drug reps word for it) comes close to this as well IMO.

However, they are so indoctrinated to believe that the disease is so much worse than the vaccine... and that herd immunity is more important than the few "casualties" that they disregard many of the warnings and contraindications because all children must be vaccinated or the health of the free world will crumble (over-exageration is mine lol).

[lorelei]

I feel parents have a duty to their children to try to learn how best to protect and raise their children.

I don't feel that Dr's should be giving vaccines if they know them to be harmful- but might they fall into the "ignorance is bliss" category as well as perhaps the majority of vaxing parents?

I would really be interested to see where you're finding your info from the CDC, I would love to read it and be able to show my MIL, amongst other things. lol
Thanks

[wallacesmum]

I think it's in the Pink Book

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pink-text.htm

If I get a chance tonight, I will take a glance and see if I can find the specific quotes.

[Gitti]

Most hospitals give patients the flu shot any way they get a chance.


If a surgeon is discharging a post-op patient, and the patient is given the flu shot in the last minute, as happens routinely now, is the surgeon responsible to give the "surgical procedure" information or is the hospital?


When the skin if pierced with a needle by a doctor, it is considered "surgery".


OT -

What about an overload of mercury from the flu shot AND the surgical instruments (bandages or some swabs contain mercury) post operatively?

[attachedmamaof3]

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...ads/safety.rtf

At the same time, approximately 10,000 cases of adverse events following vaccination are reported in the U.S. each year (these include both true adverse reactions and events that coincidentally occur after vaccination). This number exceeds the current reported incidence of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases. As a result, parents and providers in the U.S. are more likely to know someone who has experienced an adverse
event following immunization than they are to know someone who
has experienced a reportable vaccine-preventable disease.

Is that the quote you were looking for?

[carriebft]

I recently wrote about this in another thread...but it's this kind of idea (the individuality of each child, family and situation) that keeps me from finding much common ground with the pro vaccination people around me. While i agree with a lot of the science concerning many vaccines; it's the issue of administration and schedule that divides us.

But I do not think doctors are the final decision. So, if a family feels it is better to vaccinate their child and a doctor disagrees and believes the risks outweigh the benefits, then I think the family wins (in most situations with accepted vaccinations-- though I see there would be times the doctor should be able to override-- such as immuno problems and live vaccination in some cases). So really, in the end, for me, the issue still falls on the family and not the doctor. And i feel that the level of needed research by each family would be different, and that that process is strictly up to them.

SO I guess I don't put too much stock in a doctor's opinion of whether or not a certain family has researched enough concerning their own situations, children, and feelings on the issue.

One doctor may think a family is ignorant and another might see them as having completed enough research. In the end, it's up to the family to do the work and determine the level of study needed.

[xmasbaby7]

I sadly think that most doctors don't bother looking for the information that informs them the grayness of the situation.

I think the oath has been around for so long because the practice for a doctor or healer to experiment for the sake of knowledge at the cost of an individual's well being is as old as the profession itself.

[carriebft]

I, too, think the oath has lost all meaning in this country at least. One need only be a woman giving birth (esp to a son!) to realize that.

[wallacesmum]

I see what you are saying Carrie; I think that is a good point. Reading the CDC, they clearly think the docs have a responsibility to inform a patient of the benefits of vaccination. Do you disagree with this? I am not talking about whether docs should be coercive; of course I do not think they should. But, if a family isn't even asking the questions, is there any responsibility to bring them up?

[carriebft]

I dunno how I would react really do my doctor attempting to assess my level of research. It stinks to me of the same way some are treated when they don't vaccinate (have you really looked into the issue?- that kinda reaction).

I don't know how a doc would go about walking the line..as I am not even sure where the line is

So a family comes in for check up and it is time for the Hib vaccine. They sign the papers or initial, indicating they want the vaccination (or show other indications of accepting)...I guess from there I don't know. Would the simple question "Have you researched this and fully accept the implications of vaccination?" or something to that effect really DO anything? I don't know.

What signs would a doctor look for in someone whom they would assume hasn't researched...

lots of questions I guess I have on this idea.

[prettymom]

I think the CDC believes that in some instances for some vaccines (like the smallpox making a comeback in full force) the vaccine outweighs its risk. So for the public to stick out their arms and take the shots in those instances the CDC can't have people questioning vaccines in general. They want a blind following.

[Deborah]

It isn't a matter of the doctor assessing the parent's knowledge level. It is a matter of informed consent. With managed care doctors are under a lot of pressure, but even so, if a patient has questions about the treatment the doctor should answer them. Even if a patient doesn't have questions, a doctor should review the main points about the treatment and make sure things are clear. With vaxes the approach tends to be assembly-line. Everyone who is two months old should get this set of vaxes. If the practice is conscientious, the parents may receive the VIS but they are most unlikely to be allowed time to read them, consider the content, research the prevalence and seriousness of the illnesses in question. This isn't anything even remotely like informed consent.

And then there is the whole question of the health of the baby. The number of vaxes has gone up, up, up and the contraindications for giving vaxes have gone down, down, down, which means that a baby is much more likely to be given multiple vaccines in spite of being ill, underweight, on antibiotics, or even prone to seizures. WTH?