Vaccines and Conscientious Objection - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 15Likes
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By One_Girl
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 2 Post By kathymuggle
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By applejuice
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 4 Post By sassyfirechick
  • 3 Post By samaxtics
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 15 Old 07-07-2014, 11:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Vaccines and Conscientious Objection

This is a tough topic, so I can ask for a thread lock if it gets too weird or offensive. Just stay away from debating abortion, (a big no-no on MDC), and we should be OK.

Most of you know that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in favor of letting family-owned businesses refuse to provide coverage for specific methods of contraception that violate their conscientious beliefs.

I'm also hearing a lot of buzz about whether doctors should be forced to perform abortions or circumcisions despite their conscientious objection to these procedures.

Do you see a link between these issues and the right to resort to conscientious objection to refuse one or more vaccines? Legally, ethically, logically, or otherwise . . . does losing the right to conscientiously object to one thing threaten the right to conscientiously object to another? Are my questions even making sense??

I was just wondering because in either case, some people are demanding that others go against their conscience in the name of some greater good. But maybe there are fine distinctions that I'm overlooking.
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif

Last edited by Turquesa; 07-07-2014 at 11:57 PM.
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 12:43 AM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Doctors aren't forced to perform abortions or circumcisions and some don't provide vaccines due to cost so I don't see it as an issue if some decide not to because they object to them. I have known a doctor who was concerned about one individual shot but have never heard of one in our area who doesn't believe in vaccinating on the whole so allowing doctors to not give shots because they object to them doesn't seem like something that will affect many people. I get thr sense that most medical associations and most medical practitioners are more worried about excluding families from care for not giving shots than they are about having to give shots. Maybe it would be a problem in small towns but I think the government would step in with programs if that were the case.

I do think that there do need to be things doctors must be ethically bound to do though regardless of their personal feelings. I believe those things are covered by their oaths and licensing requirements.
sassyfirechick likes this.

Last edited by One_Girl; 07-08-2014 at 12:56 AM.
One_Girl is offline  
#3 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 01:48 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
I think before ANYONE posts an answer here, they need to read the decision of the SCOTUS for themselves and not what someone in the media may be saying about it. It may be a bit long and tedious, but interesting.

Most of the statements made in the press regarding the decision by some trusted persons were ridiculous, not mentioning any names. Most of you are intelligent and are capable of making up your own mind. Stop relying on other people including the media to do your thinking for you.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2a644_k53l.pdf
applejuice is offline  
#4 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 07:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
I should clarify that I'm applying these principles to doctors and lay people alike. (I can't envision a scenario of doctors forced to give vaccines against their beleifs). Compulsory circ/abortion isn't required of doctors, and coercive vaccination policies without non-medical exemptions are not a reality in most of the U.S. But there is a noisy push for both, and I definitely see similarities.

Also, I'm referring to conscientious beliefs, not personal feelings and preferences. The latter apply to trivialities like how you take your coffee. A conviction about human rights is a lot more powerful.

Thanks for the SCOTUS link, AJ. It's interesting that these other companies were involved. Hobby Lobby was just an easy target for a media brouhaha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
Doctors aren't forced to perform abortions or circumcisions and some don't provide vaccines due to cost so I don't see it as an issue if some decide not to because they object to them. I have known a doctor who was concerned about one individual shot but have never heard of one in our area who doesn't believe in vaccinating on the whole so allowing doctors to not give shots because they object to them doesn't seem like something that will affect many people. I get thr sense that most medical associations and most medical practitioners are more worried about excluding families from care for not giving shots than they are about having to give shots. Maybe it would be a problem in small towns but I think the government would step in with programs if that were the case.

I do think that there do need to be things doctors must be ethically bound to do though regardless of their personal feelings. I believe those things are covered by their oaths and licensing requirements.
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#5 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 07:46 AM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I had conscientious objections to vaccines in mind when I posted. I'm not sure why you would believe otherwise. Conscientious is defined as a decision based on your conscious made after deep thought so it doesn't necessarily mean something that protects human rights, in fact it could go against them just as easily as we have seen with suicide bombers. I think doctors need to meet their ethical dutied which don't include vaccinating because ones conscious can lead to violations of human rirights just as easily as it can lead to trying to protect them.
One_Girl is offline  
#6 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 09:45 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
I am not concerned about what you said, One_Girl. It is what was promulgated in the media that concerned me and others might take off on that. The press and some govt officials were saying that blood transfusions would be denied if for example a Jehovah's Witness owned a business and did not want to provide for that kind of treatment. That is hokum.

The line between routine healthcare as birth control, and emergency care is being blurred. A blood transfusion is done in an emergency situation to save a life. All emergency treatment is almost completely covered in all healthcare policies (I think). Years ago, most general healthcare policies could be had for JUST emergency care, NOT health maintenance care.

In 1980, the only way I would have had maternity care coverage was to have eclapsia or be at death's door.

Birth control, especially IUDs, is given to healthy women and there are plenty of alternatives to IUDs. Vaccines are given to healthy people in hope of maintaining health and avoiding disease.

How did people start talking about blood transfusions? Even if a person is not covered, emergency care is done ASAP as SOP in ER's to stabilize the victim.
applejuice is offline  
#7 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 11:47 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,047
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
What a mess.

If doctors can keep unvaxxed pateints out of practice (which they already do) then it follows that doctors can set their own rules about what they will and will not do - abortions, circs, vaccines. Either doctors and clinics are private entities with private entity privilages, such who to serve and what procedures to perform...or they are not.

I will say that I personally am not in favour of private medical systems. I am not in favour of primary care physicians being able to kick people (particularly children) out of practices because of non-compliance on an isssue. I am also not in favour of PCP washing their hands of a procedure, assuming the procedure is legal. That being said, I am sensitive to peoples consientous objections, and I do not think a conscientious objection in one area should prevent a person from becoming a PCP. I think reasonable allowances can often be made. For example: let's say I want to circ my baby boy. I think it is acceptable for a doctor to refuse to do the operation for reasons of conscience assuming he can refer me to someone who can do it. Patients should not be left hanging. I expect in many cases it is possible to balance conscientious objection with providing care through appropriate referral.

On fairly rare occasion, I do expect doctors to be willing to perform procedures that they are competent in, but personally are against, because there is no one else in a reasonable distance to do so. If you are going to practice 200 miles from the next physician, you better be willing to see vaxxed or unvaxxed children in your clininc - just as you really should be willing to do circs (much as it pains me to say) or leave kids uncirced. If you can't do this (and no judgement, I couldn't) then a very rural practice is not for you.

At the end of the day, I put patients health and right to informed choice before a doctors rights to do or serve who they please. While I feel for doctors who butt up against personal convictions, I don't cry in my coffee over it. They chose this path, they are usually well compensated for it.
applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-08-2014 at 11:54 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#8 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 01:02 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
In my community, there are three pediatricians that I know of who do NOT take insurance and do NOT give vaccines. This is a very heavily populated area.

There are other doctors who have a concierge practice in which people prepay for nearly unlimited services for three to six months.

But this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS case, except to show what options there are for health maintenance care.
applejuice is offline  
#9 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 01:04 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
As for abortion, Catholic hospitals have never been obligated to do abortions under any circumstances. I do not know how or why this was ever a problem. I did not hear this mentioned in connection with the SCOTUS decision. This kind of problem has been handled in the past successfully.

If a woman wanted an abortion and her doctor practiced at a Catholic hospital, the procedure would be done at a nearby hospital with the same doctor or a colleague who had practicing rights at the nearby hospital.

My pediatrician did not recommend circumcisions and did not do circumcisions I happen to live in an area in which finding a pediatrician or urologist or even a mohel to perform the procedure would not be difficult.

It is nice to have choices.
applejuice is offline  
#10 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 02:00 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Just a reminder of how recently state laws weighed very heavily on the individual.

When I was 10 or so, my family moved to Massachusetts for my father's employment. At that time my parents had 5 children, my mother was around 42 and they were respectably married and quite definitely not Catholic. However, in Massachusetts my mother could not legally obtain birth control.

In 1960!

She figured something out. But seriously.
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 05:02 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
That changed in five years.
Griswold V Connecticut took care of that situation, 1965.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...necticut-1965/
Deborah likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#12 of 15 Old 07-08-2014, 05:26 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Well, thank goodness it did!

But I find it amazing to look at the changes in my lifetime.

Ladies, women couldn't get credit cards in their own names...
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#13 of 15 Old 07-10-2014, 10:47 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Well, thank goodness it did!

But I find it amazing to look at the changes in my lifetime.

Ladies, women couldn't get credit cards in their own names...
Women also could not have their own credit rating or buy a car or a house without their husband's permission. That system worked for a time for a reason.

This may happen someday, but it happened in Poland. Does Poland have national healthcare? Since they ID'd the narcolepsy and other vaccine side effects better than the US, I wonder what is going on there.

http://news.yahoo.com/polish-hospita...123605337.html

Last edited by applejuice; 07-10-2014 at 01:37 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#14 of 15 Old 07-10-2014, 03:36 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
In my ideal world, the insurance that I pay for should cover me in whatever way I choose to be covered! Be it vax/no vax, circ/no circ, western medicine or TCM.....I should be able to walk into any doctor's office and get the care I choose because I pay into the system. Nope, instead I pay out of pocket for an ND who has been forced to stop accepting insurance just to keep her business afloat because of all the regulations and costs associated with being "mainstream".

I totally agree with kathy on all counts - docs should be able to conscientiously object, but they should be required to give referrals rather than banning patients outright, or worse, using scare tactics to get their way. If that service is within their scope of practicing ability, they should be willing and ready to perform that service...its not like you don't know what you are getting into when you enter into med school! I don't expect an MD to perform within the scope of Naturopathic medicine unless they've been trained as such, but that's why Insurance Companies should not have the influence they do on what procedures and medical modalities are covered. It's not just the businesses making the decisions here although they may save money on insurance policies by denying coverage to certain things.....

You can have your conscientious beliefs all you want - but your beliefs should never infringe upon the beliefs of others and you shouldn't be able to dictate the type of care that someone else receives just because you personally are against it. (obviously the "you" in all this is not anyone on here, lol)
sassyfirechick is offline  
#15 of 15 Old 07-11-2014, 07:37 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
The problem in Poland seemed to be that the doctor did not refer the patient to another doctor that would perform the procedure. I think for someone with the conviction of being against the procedure, having to do referrals may be seen as no different as the end result is the same. It's a publicly funded healthcare system in Poland; those doctors who do not want to do the procedure or do referrals should have a written policy to give patients that should include a phone number of a central health link that can give out the information.

As a patient I wouldn't want a doctor who is opposed for whatever reason to perform that procedure on me. Even in the most simplest of medical procedures accidents happen, events that happen beyond the control of the doctor. I wouldn't want to have to add intent to the question of why something happened, NWIM?

I too, am frustrated that our healthcare (universal) does not include the types of healthcare we like to access. It was our ND (paid from our own pocket) who was instrumental in helping recover our son with ASD and my husband with his arthritis. My husband is arthritis- free and hasn't had to see our allopathic doctor in years about it, essentially saving the taxpayers money. When my husband mentioned that he had read WheatBelly and cut out wheat/gluten/sugar and lost 15lbs in 2 months and has way more energy, the allopathic doctor's response was "I would have to see the science" and "what does a cardiologist know about diet?".
applejuice, Deborah and beckybird like this.
samaxtics is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off