Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


I agree that the scenario is highly unlikely, for now. But, what if more and more parents decide not to vaccinate their children (DTAP, Hib, and MMR)? Then the scenario becomes more and more likely to happen. Moreover, what if instead of the parents having one infant, they had triplets? In the hypothetical scenario say, all 3 got sick, two of them died. A story like this would probably make headlines across the country. Lawyers and plaintiffs don't always sue for money, sometimes they sue to make a point.

In summary, I don't think it's a matter of whether a parent should sue in a similar scenario or not. Given that more and more parents are deciding not to vaccinate, Caplan's statement is a scary proposition, for everyone. But it makes all parents, pro or anti vaccine, to really think about this very important decision of vaccination.

In other words, it doesn't matter what risks the parents see to their own child, fear of being sued to make a point is more important than protecting one's child.

So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of of happiness. We have a corrupt vaccine industry and a corrupt government funding them, but according to Caplan, only those who trust them and do as they say are deserving.
Taximom5 is offline  
#62 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:02 AM
 
ssun5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Given that more and more parents are deciding not to vaccinate, Caplan's statement is a scary proposition, for everyone. But it makes all parents, pro or anti vaccine, to really think about this very important decision of vaccination.

 

Thinking about whether some court hungry people would sue me or not would NEVER come into play as to why or why not to receive a vax. How absurd.

That last line sounds like a sound bite..... LOL ROTFLMAO.gif   I thought we were all suppose to be looking at the "science".   Opps! ROTFLMAO.gif

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu


S

DS-14

DS-14      

DD-9

DD-3

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

ssun5 is offline  
#63 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:09 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The scenario is highly unlikely because people do not live in a bubble. Where are these "mountain people" who haven't left their cabin for two months? And the woman is pregnant? With triplets?! I would argue that if there were people living in a cabin completely void of human contact aside from person X, then they probably aren't the type to be vaccinated anyway. But even if they were, everything about this scenario is irrelevant because it would never happen in today's society.

I wonder, can someone tell me what Caplan's interest is in presenting this idea of suing the unvaccinated? It seems to me that all it does is create anger and fear. It's not science. It's not even rational. IMO, it is clearly a strategy to pit parent against parent on an issue that really isn't as divisive in real life. What is the purpose of creating this hysteria? What are we missing as we focus on a created outrage and how might Caplan benefit from us being preoccupied?

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#64 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:20 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Most of us here are looking at the science. But some are trying to scare people away from looking at the science. They use intimidation, like the threat of being sued for turning down an invasive procedure, to frighten us into not bothering to research the safety/efficacy of that invasive procedure. That's all they have left--intimidation, because too many people have stopped believing the lies.

The pattern of human history just keeps repeating: greed, corruption, lies, demonizing all who disagree, abuse of power, intimidation. Each time, we say, "never again, we can never let this happen again," but it keeps happening.
Taximom5 is offline  
#65 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 11:54 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


I agree that the scenario is highly unlikely, for now. But, what if more and more parents decide not to vaccinate their children (DTAP, Hib, and MMR)? Then the scenario becomes more and more likely to happen. 

If any of these diseases became common for one reason or another, it would be more difficult to tell where you got the disease from, not less.  

applejuice likes 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...

kathymuggle is online now  
#66 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Courts have been reluctant to establish a duty to protect others, so a tort case based on not vaccinating and getting someone else sick seems really far fetched, even if you COULD prove that the unvaccinated person was the proximate cause of the compensable injury. It's never going to happen.
applejuice and kathymuggle like this.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#67 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 01:07 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

If any of these diseases became common for one reason or another, it would be more difficult to tell where you got the disease from, not less.  

 

Tricky to say. Yes more potential sources but also more likely a "cabin scenario" occurs.

 

The point of Caplan's argument is to really, really look at the data. A few hours ago, 67 papers were provided claiming to be proof of a link between vaccines and autism. Everyone can go to the link and double check the following statements:

- Most papers provided in that link DO NOT provide a link between vaccines and autism. Some study environmental factors in general, others study exposure to aluminum or to mercury. Science has widely accepted that exposure to HIGH levels of mercury may cause mercury. Although thimerosal levels in vaccines showed no link with autism, it was phased out from vaccines as a precaution (parents and AAP had recommended this). This DID NOT reduce the autism rates. Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in some vaccines. Levels of it in vaccines are no more than a liter of infant formula (http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html).

- In fact the list doesn't even have 67 references (it skips 5, 48 and 49)

- Only a handful of papers in the end actually argue there's a link between autism and vaccines. Paper 53 is one of them. This paper has received a wide array of criticism for it's methods, including the use of erroneous data and cherry picking their data. Here's one link with many criticisms http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/07/10/comment-on-do-aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants-contribute-to-the-rising-prevalence-of-autism/

 Paper 42 also states a link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and autism. But data was cherry picked as well. For example, they used a survey from 1997 for their children data although the Hepatitis B vaccine wasn't fully implemented until 1996!! More issues are available here: http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/07/1-hepatitis-b-vaccination-of-male-neonates-and-autism-diagnosis-nhis-1997-2002-2010.html

- I provided an AAP approved list of over 40 papers debunking links between vaccines and autism (post 57 of this thread), as well as one other useful link.

 

In summary, it is quite clear that the science finds no evidence of an association between autism and vaccines. Caplan simply wants parents to get more information before they make a decision. Taking the information from scientific journals IS NOT easy. The best ones are quite technical and difficult to read. But AAP, HHS, Institute of Medicine, universities, CDC, and many other entities have very useful information on the topic.

vanni likes this.
bakunin is offline  
#68 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 01:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Far fetched? Senator Ernie Chambers sued God in 2007 to prove a point http://www.ketv.com/State-Sen-Ernie-Chambers-Sues-God/-/9675214/10211380/-/octyom/-/index.html

So yes, it is certainly not impossible for a vaccine case like this to happen

bakunin is offline  
#69 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 01:57 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Anyone can sue for any reason. The court can toss it for being frivolous, too, which is what would rightly happen if someone sued over contracting a VPI.
applejuice and Jennyanydots like this.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#70 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 02:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Anyone can sue for any reason. The court can toss it for being frivolous, too, which is what would rightly happen if someone sued over contracting a VPI.

It appears that some think that any lawsuit of this kind is automatically frivolous. But technically, a lawsuit is frivolous if it has no legal merit or justification. In the case of the cabin scenario, it doesn't seem a judge would consider the lawsuit to be frivolous.

 

Also, why are we focusing so much on the possibility of a lawsuit of this type? It is not difficult to find way more outrageous lawsuits. Why not look at the scientific evidence of vaccines and its risks? I posted about general consensus among scientists against the claim that vaccines causes autism and other disorders (post 57 and 67 in this thread). I encourage readers to evaluate this evidence and provide strong scientific evidence that contradicts it.

bakunin is offline  
#71 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 02:56 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Left Brain Right Brain is a 'Skeptical Blogger' with an axe to grind. He is no more credible than a blogger with an axe to grind that is critical of Vax safety/policy.

The rate of Thimerosal exposure hasn't totally gone down since we have shifted exposure from children to fetuses in recent years . . . And Thoreson, who did the infamous Thimerosal 'Danish Study' is actually guilty of massive theft & is on InterPol's most wanted list. Whatever you think of Wakefield, he doesn't belong in PRISON like Thoreson.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#72 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:01 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

It appears that some think that any lawsuit of this kind is automatically frivolous. But technically, a lawsuit is frivolous if it has no legal merit or justification. In the case of the cabin scenario, it doesn't seem a judge would consider the lawsuit to be frivolous.

 

Also, why are we focusing so much on the possibility of a lawsuit of this type? It is not difficult to find way more outrageous lawsuits. Why not look at the scientific evidence of vaccines and its risks? I posted about general consensus among scientists against the claim that vaccines causes autism and other disorders (post 57 and 67 in this thread). I encourage readers to evaluate this evidence and provide strong scientific evidence that contradicts it.

To asnswer the question I bolded: the title of this thread is "Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences".

applejuice and Katie8681 like this.
rachelsmama is offline  
#73 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Left Brain Right Brain is a 'Skeptical Blogger' with an axe to grind. He is no more credible than a blogger with an axe to grind that is critical of Vax safety/policy.

The rate of Thimerosal exposure hasn't totally gone down since we have shifted exposure from children to fetuses in recent years . . . And Thoreson, who did the infamous Thimerosal 'Danish Study' is actually guilty of massive theft & is on InterPol's most wanted list. Whatever you think of Wakefield, he doesn't belong in PRISON like Thoreson.


Granted. It was a link from a blogger that criticized one of the papers. Just one example though and he makes VERY GOOD POINTS.... with adequate references. Also experts have pointed out the same issues with the study than found in that blog. Furthermore, the 67 papers referenced a while back are from a blogger too!! A blogger that didn't even count right I'm compelled to ad.

 

Finally, no scientific evidence has yet to be given contradicting the arguments made in post 57 and 67 of this thread.

bakunin is offline  
#74 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:13 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Also, why are we focusing so much on the possibility of a lawsuit of this type?

 

Didn't you start another thread on this same topic, asking for discussion? shrug.gif

 

 

Quote:
I posted about general consensus among scientists against the claim that vaccines causes autism and other disorders (post 57 and 67 in this thread). I encourage readers to evaluate this evidence and provide strong scientific evidence that contradicts it.

 

Perhaps you can start your own thread to discuss this other issue, which isn't really relevant to the op.

applejuice likes this.
fruitfulmomma is online now  
#75 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, it is very much relevant to the thread. It's the reason why Caplan made his statement. We shouldn't resist the need for scientific evidence, we should embrace it. Also, person X in the cabin example would likely have to explain the reason for not vaccinating, and belief (as the parent praying example I gave before) would not cut it.
 

bakunin is offline  
#76 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:40 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bakunin, this whole thread is about legal liability.
My earlier post was in response to the idea that the "cabin case" could win. Doubt it.
applejuice likes this.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#77 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 03:52 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wish we would discuss this topic according to what actually occurs in the modern world rather than the "cabin case". It's a completely unrealistic scenario that would never happen in today's society. We should be asking how reasonable it is to think we can pinpoint "Person X" in a realistic situation and if so, whether that person should be liable for someone else's suffering.
applejuice likes this.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#78 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 04:00 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Yes, the statistics from that outbreak raised concern over the age the vaccination a those vaccinated younger had a higher attack rate than expected.

 

That was part of the point of the post.  

 

 

But how do you get it that from this statistic?  What does this 52 out of 98 mean to you? 

 

This article has further information:  http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IDSA/29238

 

 

"Only 4.7% of the students in the school were unvaccinated, he noted, and they bore the brunt of the outbreak, with half of the 98 cases and an attack rate of 82%. On the other hand, there were 41 cases among the 1,111 students with complete vaccination, for a much lower attack rate of 3.7%.

But that is still higher than would be expected, De Serres said, if the two doses of vaccine – delivered at 12 and 18 months – are as effective as has been thought.

Analysis showed that the attack rate was 5.9% if students got their first shot at 12 months, with a vaccine efficacy of 93%. But among the minority whose first shots were delayed to 15 months, the attack rate was 2.1% with a vaccine efficacy of 97.5%, suggesting that the later vaccine schedule prolonged immunity."

 

The CDC say one dose of vaccine is 95 % effective and the second dose catches virtually everyone else.  I do not consider a 3.7% measles rate if exposed virtually everyone.   

 

Yes, but I wasn't asking for more information on the Quebec outbreak - I already had that (I've actually posted that very link before, though it was a year or so ago, so of course I wouldn't expect you to remember that) .  Sorry, I may not have been absolutely clear in my last post. I was agreeing that the actual statistics (which you've now posted, but were not in your original post/ink) showed that the vaccine was slightly less effective than expected in this outbreak, and then I was asking what the statistic you quoted to back that up ( 52 of 98 teen who caught measles were fully vaccinated)  had to do with that/was meant to show.  

 

I have seen the Quebec situation used several times to demonstrate that the measles vaccine is not very effective.  However, every time it has always been the article with teh 52 of 98 teen were vaccinated without any context for those numbers.  The only time I've seen the article with more statistics posted prior to this was when I was the one posting it.  This is troublesome because at a glance when someone is going over information quickly without taking time to really think it through or when someone who is not all that mathematically inclined reads it, it can make it seem that the measles vaccine is completely worthless - after all, if just as many vaxed got it as unvaxed, then the vax must not have been protecting them, right?  Or fewer vaxed would have gotten it?  It's a little misleading to write doubting the vaccines efficiency and then follow that up with numbers that make it appear to make no difference at all.  I wish that the author of the article had done a better job in that regard, but I suspect it was not deliberate but rather that the author just isn't all that statistically inclined.  

 

52 out of 98 really doesn't tell you much at all.  You could have a situation where 52 vaxed kids got measles and still only have the vaccine have a 1% or less failure rate if the population is large enough.  Or, if the school had a hundred vaxed kids and a hundred unvaxed kids, so equal populations, the 52 kids would indeed show that the vax didn't make a difference. It sound shocking, which I think is why it is used so much, but really is fairly useless without any more information on the overall population.  

 

What the numbers actually show is that while more vaxed kids got it than expected, the vaccine still made a huge, huge difference in how likely a person was to get the disease.  

 

The reason why more vaxed kid got it than expected is certainly worth looking in to more, especially the as to how the age of first vax made a difference.  However, it is just one small outbreak, and while it is certainly concerning enough to warrant more investigation and research, one can not actually conclude very much with certainty.  Is the vaccine less effective than generally thought?  Or, since the kid are close in age and in the same area, was there a bad batch of vaccine when they were young that they got?  Or was it just some weird statistical clumping since the 1 to 2% the vaccine is expected to fail for are not going to be distributed perfectly evenly in the population (like when you role a pair of sixes three times in a row it doesn't necessarily mean that the dice are not balanced or that you are more likely to get sixes than any other number - statistically you can expect that to happen from time to time).  

pers is offline  
#79 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 05:18 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
not worth it.  
applejuice and rachelsmama 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...

kathymuggle is online now  
#80 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 06:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

the scenario is certainly likely. One could come up with a more dramatic scenario, say involving a day care, but that's beside point. Denying the possibility of the lawsuit is not going to make this possibility (again which will very likely happen in the future) disappear. The scientific evidence provided in post 57 and 67 is still there ready to be evaluated :)

bakunin is offline  
#81 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 06:34 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think I'm done with this discussion. This scenario is so unlikely it's become ludicrous. I'd like to know where you would find a pregnant couple living in total seclusion with no contact to the outside world other than this person who has whooping cough. It's ridiculous! Where are these people, The Amazon? Bet they aren't vaxxed.

You guys have fun with this one! I'm done with the fear mongering for today. I refused to be intimidated into vaccinating my child.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#82 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 06:46 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please Baukin: those posts are regurgitating the party line, which we totally already have reviewed.

However I agree with you that a successful Civil suit is likely. A) It was already a Law & Order type show Episode scripted by B*ll G*tes. Doesn't fiction sometimes foreshadow reality? Also, we *know* that courts are extremely subject to the Zietgeist & very subjective @ times. Lady Justice is as much of a utopian fantasy as true science free of corporate & dogmatic influence. Courts generally find 4 the Vaxing parent when it becomes an issue in custody cases & DSS gets to Vax *up* any kid they take into custody.

As we can see from the Jenny McC Witch Hunt 2013, the metaphorical mob is ready 2 go, pitchforks & fire. So yk, expect drama.
applejuice and Marnica like this.
dinahx is offline  
#83 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 08:35 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Since we're talking hypothetically, why not sue the vaccine manufacturers when vaccinated people get measles due to vaccine-failure, or when women miscarry due to not having an immunity to measles, or when newborns are denied the maternal antibodies because their mothers never had a chance to develop the right type of immunity, etc.... it makes just as much sense. 

 

The bottom line is that the efficacy of measles vaccine was grossly inflated for a long time, but many people are reluctant to admit that, and would rather find a scapegoat than admit that the eradication plans were a bit unrealistic.

 

Do you have good evidence that they are capable of producing a 100% effective vaccine and just not bothering to do it?  That would be worthy of a lawsuit.  There is a difference between someone who is acting reasonably/doing the best they can and someone who could do something to lower the risk but doesn't.  

 

Newborns from vaccinated mothers get fewer maternal antibodies than they would from a mother who actually had measles and so the protection does not last as long, but they do get some maternal antibodies (if they didn't, then the measles vaccine could be given younger as one of the reasons it doesn't work well in infants is because of interference from maternal antibodies).  In any case, maternal antibodies are not a 100% will keep them from getting it thing, and fewer babies get measles today than they did back in the days when measles was going around and so babies were being exposed to it, just like I'm certain there are people here whose babies had chicken pox under a year or who had it themselves as babies despite all of us and our mothers having had chickenpox.  Lack of exposure is better protection than maternal antibodies.  

 

Measles vaccine is very effective and it was wiped out in North America (though it does keep coming back in small/self limited outbreak as it is re-introduced from abroad from time to time).  But yes, while in theory it would be possible to wipe out measles entirely if everyone in the world could be vaccinated, in reality the plans to do so were highly unrealistic given how fast and easily the disease spreads and political upheaval and poverty and the difficulty of tracking everyone down to maintain vaccination rates high enough everywhere in the world for a long enough period of time to do so.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

If his kid gets measles it is because the vax didn't work for his kid, in which case his kid is just as much at risk of spreading the disease to mine than the other way around. So, sure if I can sue you when your vaxxed kid gives mine a disease, go ahead. eyesroll.gif

 

That's kind of like saying that the person who was carefully driving a little under the speed limit and paying good attention to the the road and the cars around them but caused a bad accident after they hit an invisible and unexpected patch of black ice should be treated the same and face the same penalties as a drunk driver.  In many instances our laws and courts differentiate between doing the best you can but still having a bad outcome and true negligence.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post

I think and hope this is how most people who vaccinate feel. It's simply absurd. We have to be able to choose what medical treatments we want to undergo. And for anyone who may be reading that thinks this is okay, that means you are agreeing to get every vaccine they come out with and suggest- no matter what. And it's a slippery slope to legislating other medical procedures as well.

 

Well, that I agree with.  I'm actually against the idea of these lawsuits.  I just don't agree with some of the reasoning in this thread.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Here are some other things Bio'Ethicists' have recently proposed: 

 

After Birth Abortion (aka, the new hip name for Infantacide and I know we are not allowed to discuss it here so it is not up for debate but I am citing an EXAMPLE of a radical idea that recently graced the pages of a BioEthics journal)

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

And BioEthicist Peter Singer just proposed throwing down a One Child Limit on yk, everyone. If you know how grisly that looks in China, you would shudder! He said this at a MAJOR global conference.

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/peter-singer-women-should-sacrifice-having-kids-to-protect-environment

 

So basically anything goes in BioEthics Now A Days, as long as it is sorta against individual rights.

 

There is some quote about Academia mostly propping up the actions of the Ruling Class and I believe that more and more lately.

 

Bioethicists are people who study/discuss/debate ethics in regard to biology and medicine.  They are not a unified group with identical ideas.  They do not automatically share values or beliefs, and they certainly don't agree on everything or there would not be much debate going on, and I'd be willing to bet  that 99.9999999% of them believe that anyone who supports post-birth abortion is smoking crack (these ideas get reported and talked about because they are shocking, not because they are widely held), and a good many of them probably think Peter Singer is too most of the time. 

 

If we are going to do away with the study and debate of ethics in medicine, then does that mean that we just stop all study and advances in those areas?  Or do we just let the do whatever they want in those regards without bothering to design ethical studies or consider the ethical implications of thing such as cloning of organs or animals or humans or genetic screening, etc?  We need these discussions and debates.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

He is on shaky territory trying to sue over a m/c too. His peers don't consider a fetus or a BABY a person until it is an active agent capable of self reflection, so I don't see how the baby would have the right of redress in a court of law in that climate. He can't have it both ways.

 

Whether a fetus is a person or a just a clump of cells is not really the point here (and not appropriate to discuss here either).  Whatever it is, if you cause a woman to miscarry it, you have done an injury to her, and she is without question a person and has the right to redress. 

 

(Oh, and again, bioethicists are people who study/debate/discuss these issues, not who think a certain way or necessarily agree on them.  Some of his peers will consider a fetus a baby or a person and some of them won't.  If all the people debating ethic agreed on this issue one way or another, the world would be a much simpler place).  

pers is offline  
#84 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 08:45 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just a technical point: the bulk of m/c are actually embryos. Fetus is 10 weeks.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#85 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 08:49 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It would suck 4 sure to be a patient with a reportable disease. I don't believe MMR is a safe Vax or 'the best we can possibly do' but were a case to be reported in my region, political/social fallout & difficulty obtaining knowledgeable treatment might influence my decision.

Pertussis is way more widespread & I don't think about that one because we have a hard contraindication.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#86 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 08:51 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
I already outlined in #25 the next-to-impossibility of accurately hunting down a Patient Zero.

Meanwhile, there's a name for someone who makes emotionally charged medical decisions based on fear of lawsuits: Doctor. duck.gif Thankfully, not all of them do that, and neither do I. So I'm going to stick with fact-finding and weighing risks and benefits.

Caplan is hoping to see people vaccinate not out of informed consent but out of fear. An unfortunate number of fanatics want to see vaccine compliance that is fear-based and not fact-based--fear of diseases, fear of legal issues, (custody, denied exemptions, etc), fear of being "fired" by a pediatrician, fear of losing one's job as a health care provider, and now fear of litigation.

There is something fundamentally wrong with circumventing the informed consent process by resorting to this cheap brand of emotional manipulation.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#87 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 09:05 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Well, now I know you did not just compare non-vaxxers to drunk drivers, but you may be interested to know that many of us do in fact do things to help prevent diseases in our children in the first place and also to keep them from spreading to others. Now, what about the vaxxed l&d nurse who goes onto her shift with just a little cough because she can't possible have pertussis and then spreads it to newborn babies and their mothers? Was that neglectful? Or is she covered from any responsibility by sheer fact of her vax status?

fruitfulmomma is online now  
#88 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 09:21 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Well, now I know you did not just compare non-vaxxers to drunk drivers, but you may be interested to know that many of us do in fact do things to help prevent diseases in our children in the first place and also to keep them from spreading to others. Now, what about the vaxxed l&d nurse who goes onto her shift with just a little cough because she can't possible have pertussis and then spreads it to newborn babies and their mothers? Was that neglectful? Or is she covered from any responsibility by sheer fact of her vax status?

 

Yes, absolutely, just to clarify for anyone not so willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, I used drunk driving as it is a rather obvious case of the same result being sometimes bad things just happen in one case and clear negligence in the other.  While I am pro-vax and think everyone (except those with clear medical reasons not to) should vax, I do understand that those who don't are just trying to do what they believe is best for their families and don't consider it the equivalent of driving drunk. 

 

Some situations are clear cut and others are a bit more complex.  It is generally not considered wrong to be out in public with just a cough because it usually isn't anything serious and if everyone stayed home when they had one, well, it's just not a realistic expectation, so I don't think it is negligence if someone who has no way of knowing they have it spreads it that way (knowingly exposing others is a different matter).  In the case of a nurse, I'm not sure what guidelines are generally in place as to when it is okay to come in and when you are expected to stay home, but I would hope and expect that there are some well thought out rules or guideline on that, so I'd think whether or not she was negligent depended on whether she was abiding by them or violating them.  

pers is offline  
#89 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:05 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Did any of you catch this? A law professor at NYU took him to town with this rebuttal:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/0/21/guest-post-crack-down-on-those-who-dont-vaccinate-a-response-to-art-caplan/#more-6556

Somehow, I don't think this will get an NPR story.

 

I have a number of issue with this rebuttal. 

 

From the link:

 

Quote:
Dr. Caplan’s assertions to the contrary, vaccines are neither completely safe nor completely effective.

 

Except that he doesn't actually assert either of these thing.  To the contrary, while he does say that vaccines are "safe," (which is not the same as "completely safe"), he specifically says that vaccine are not 100% effective.  Did the author of the rebuttal just not read carefully enough?  Or was he deliberately mis-representing the original author?

 

He goes on to discuss how we know that vaccines can and will cause bad things, but does not address how rare or common these things are.  Nothing in life is completely safe, and there are plenty of activities or things that are considered generally safe even though occasionally they have bad results. Safe is a relative term  The rebuttal author also does not bother to mention any of the risks of the diseases vaccines are intended to prevent.  People are occasionally killed in accidents by being trapped in their vehicle by a stuck seatbelt or when they are strangled by their seatbelt when they could have survived unbuckled.  Wearing your seatbelt is still considered the safe option though because the risk of not wearing it is so much worse.  

 

 

Quote:
Dr. Caplan seems to suggest a peculiarly narrow kind of civil liability, allowing claims only by those who have been vaccinated and become sick against those who lawfully refused vaccination. What if a vaccinated person spreads disease?

 

See my previous post just a few posts ago with the drunk driving example. 

 

Or consider medical malpractice.  If the doctor practices according to established medical standards, it is not medical malpractice if he patient dies or suffers a complication.  Everything has risks, and sometimes these things happen despite the doctors best efforts.  If the patient suffers a complication because the doctor was in a hurry and took a shortcut during surgery or didn't run standard tests any other doctor would, that is malpractice.  

 

There is a different between acting to the best of your abilities but something bad happening anyway and not bothering to try.  One is just that sh*t happens, and the other is negligence.  

 

 

Quote:
And what if disease breaks out in a highly vaccinated population, with no unvaccinated person to finger? There have been numerous outbreaks of mumps, measles and pertussis with no initial cases traced to unvaccinated individuals.

 

From that standpoint, we should stop arresting thieves when we catch them because there are so many cases where something is stolen and we can't find any thief to point a finger at.  Again, I'm not saying that non-vaxers are the equivalent of thieves.  Just that when you have a case where you have a case A where you do have a clear source of the disease, what does the question of whether you should sue in that case have to do with whether or not you can find the source of a completely different outbreak B?  

 

Quote:
Overall, Dr. Caplan seems to suggest an implied duty to vaccinate on all members of society. Yet the legal foundation for such a duty is shaky, as there is no clear analogue in tort or criminal law for a duty to rescue, even if a person may do so at little or no cost to herself.

 

I actually thought that you could get in trouble for failing to provide reasonable assistance to someone in need?  Such as if you just ignore someone badly injured/choking/whatever, not even bothering to call 911 when you are the only person around to do so?  Perhaps that is just in some places though and not true in the US?  

 

In any case, I'll take his word for it on the rest of this point.  As things currently stand, I don't believe that forced vaccination or suing someone just trying to do what they believe best for their family's safety (however misguided I may believe that to be) is the right way to go.  

 

 

Quote:
Despite sharp disagreement about civil liability, on one important point Dr. Caplan and I agree. He notes in his post that “newborns can’t benefit from vaccines.” Dr. Caplan is correct that there is no compelling science suggesting that newborns’ undeveloped immune systems can benefit from vaccination. Given this acknowledgement, I expect that Dr. Caplan agrees that the federal recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine while still in the hospital is unwise.

 

This is kind of dragging it off the point.  Suing someone for not getting a vaccine that likely would have prevented the spread of disease is a different kettle of fish from suing someone for not doing something that did not have a chance of being.  That said, I have no idea what Dr. Caplan was smoking when he said that.  Was he just over-simplifying since what he said was true for the diseases he was talking about or if he just forgot about hepatitis B or if he was smoking crack or did he actually forget about hepatitis or what?  

 

In any case, I think it is rather disingenuous of Holland to argue with everything Caplan said previous to this and then just take this at its face value completely ignoring the CDC and APA and all other doctors and studies and evidence that say that the hepatitis b vaccine is effective in newborns.  

pers is offline  
#90 of 412 Old 07-26-2013, 10:17 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
not worth it.  

 

Raising the level of discourse again?

 

Seriously, that's really disrespectful.  But whatever. Just pretty please in the future pay a little more attention to the statistics you post and make sure they actually back up what you are claiming rather than just muddying the waters.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

I think I'm done with this discussion. This scenario is so unlikely it's become ludicrous. I'd like to know where you would find a pregnant couple living in total seclusion with no contact to the outside world other than this person who has whooping cough. It's ridiculous! Where are these people, The Amazon? Bet they aren't vaxxed.

You guys have fun with this one! I'm done with the fear mongering for today. I refused to be intimidated into vaccinating my child.

 

I agree that it is a rather ludicrous example!  Also, in many cases it is impossible to tell who got it from who, especially in large outbreaks or with diseases that are still circulating somewhat regularly. 

 

However, with rare diseases, there are examples where the path of the disease can be tracked.  For instances, when you get measles from someone who came down with measles just a day or two after returning from a trip overseas to a place in the midst of a measles outbreak or that case a few years ago where a baby was infected in the waiting room of their pediatrician (it is commonly said that the doctor in question was Dr. Sears, but then I think I read that while the measles did happen, he wasn't the doctor).  

 

There may be many reasons not to sue the person who imported measles or the parents of the kid who brought measles to the waiting room (I don't support the lawsuits), but I don't think that listing other cases where you can't identify the source should matter when considering what to do in the cases where you can. 

pers is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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