More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

[Scott_Lafrance]

hygienehypothesis.com/

Our primal ancestors ingested dirt as a means of exposing themselves to pathogens (unintentionally, obviously. They were eating it to assist with digestion). Their immune systems were far more robust than ours, because they were constantly exposed to pathogens. Communicable disease only became a problem after we settled into permanent communities and began public septic systems, reducing our exposure to pathogens, and weakening our immune systems.

Example, the Black Death. Citizens of tightly packed cities were at the greatest risk, not only because of poor sanitation and tight living conditions, but also because of weakened immune systems. Folks in the country, though less exposed than city folk, also had immune mechanisms that were far more effective at fighting infection.

 

[pnewton]

But your litigation does help make doctors more responsible.

But it also makes them less available, economically.

 

[pnewton]

Medicine is supposed to be a more noble and honourable profession. There is this Hippocratic Oath for instance.

Do no man harm is a mile away from a mandate of forced labor for those who will not listen to them.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Because smallpox presents a significant threat against the entire population, not just select groups. It is spread through casual contact, and up to 60% healthy individuals who contract it will die. This is a stark contrast to the Measles.

Right. So give people the information and let them make the decision. Why mandate that people get toxic substances forced upon them?

If I am told the mortality rate of smallpox and the efficacy of the vaccine, I would probably submit to it voluntarily.

 

[Cider]

HBV is a good vaccine. I do concur.

With vaccines there is also an issue of herd immunity. Measles may not be so harmful to immunologically competent persons, but those with HIV/leukemia/on chemotherapy etc. are at greater risk of complications and death. Rubella too can be serious for unborn children.

Oh the irony of people always using that argument that you must vaccinate to protect the immune compromised. My oncologist told me to stay away from anyone recently vaccinated when I was being treated with chemotherapy.

( this was years ago and I’m officially cured)

 

[SamTheNewfie]

Right. So give people the information and let them make the decision. Why mandate that people get toxic substances forced upon them?

If I am told the mortality rate of smallpox and the efficacy of the vaccine, I would probably submit to it voluntarily.

I don’t support legally forcing anyone, but I do think it was a necessary part of the vaccine schedule.

 

[mlund]

The ugly truth is that vaccinations are big money from the government. The CDC throws down an ever-expanding schedule of vaccines and States receive grants every year to conform to those recommendations and document uptake. Huge amounts of money are going out right now on projects to increase data-transfer rates and accuracy back to the CDC from the State registries.

Does you kid -need- to be vaccinated against chicken-pox or Hepatitus B? Not really, but it’s all up side for the doctor to give your kid those shots and all down side not to (government harassment). Giving boys HPV shots, seriously?

The other ugly truth is that vaccinations are not perfectly safe. There is a Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund for a reason. Vaccines are recalled. Vaccines get spoiled. Vaccines contain bases, preservatives, or active elements that are -statistically- safe for the general population but still cause injury or death to children that are statistical outliers. DTaP gets given 4-5 times to a child and 1-in-4 develops minor fever. 1-in-14000 develops a severe seizure. 1-in-16,000 develops a life-threatening high fever, one in a million will suffer a severe allergic reaction, coma or brain damage - and those are the CDCs own numbers.

Those are rationally acceptable risks, but we shouldn’t act like there’s no risk.

And those risks are only random samples. If you already had warning signs of liver problems, motility problems, allergies, neurological disorders, etc. the likelihood of a “freak accident” in your particular case skyrockets. That’s why the registry vaccination records have “contraindications” entries - though they only usually get used -after- someone has proven this out the hard way, with an ER visit.

Vaccination mandates are managed on the macro scale by the government, but risk-management for individual patients is on the micro-scale and is largely ignored in the flurry of federal funding and regulation that goes on. Medical information sharing is extremely locked down by HIPAA too. Your old doctor may know about your kid’s casein allergy and use only the Glaxo single-dose of the vaccine. The free clinic your spouse takes the boy or girl too after moving to Texas? They don’t have a clue and they don’t remind you about those things. In goes that Marsh-Mack vaccine from the Multi-dose vial and off goes little Billy or Suzy to the Emergency Room, or maybe subtler-but-worse adverse reactions set in.

In my experience nurses and doctors Hate it when parents ask about the particulars of any vaccine or bring up things like how a close blood-relative had a bad reaction to XYZ - they just want to get the shot done and move on. If anything goes wrong where they follow the government mandated process they aren’t liable. If they don’t play ball with the one-size-fits-all model, however, they suffer for it.

Should kids get necessary vaccines even though they aren’t 100% safe? Of course! If we didn’t we’d have way more deaths and serious injuries from preventable diseases. Does the system look out for the kids that are more likely to suffer serious side-effects from vaccine reactions? Not even remotely. That’s up to the parents - the government isn’t going to help you there and the government is also going to make it very unlikely for your pediatrician to help either until something’s already gone wrong.

• Marty Lund

 

[SamH]

I don’t have a dog in the vaccination fight (I do vaccinate my kids, but don’t have a problem with those who don’t want to)…

but don’t doctors have the right to run their business the way they see fit?

Apparently you haven’t heard of a recent law passed called The Affordable Care Act of 2010. The government now tells doctors what, who and how they will do things in their private practice.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Smallpox killed 1 in 10 children in Europe, 1 in 7 in Russia. It affected around 60% of the world population and killed 1 in 4 of the infected. 8 people died to eradicate it you say? Clearly vaccines are the scourge of humanity.

Well it certainly was a scourge to those 8 people.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well it certainly was a scourge to those 8 people.

If those 8 people knew of the risks and agreed to receive the vaccine voluntarily, then so be it. If they were forced to receive the vaccine without knowledge of the risks, then who is to blame for these murders? And yes, they are murders in any reasonable definition of the word.

 

[He_Man]

If a patient was refusing to cooperate with the doctor, why would the doctor waste his time?

Because they are being paid? If I treat my car like trash and ignore everything the mechanic tells me, should he refuse service? Seems to me there was an episode of Seinfled about that.

And what if the doctor believes amniocentisis or abortion are the best option, despite my wife and I not being interested them? Should we be fired too?

The doctor is paid well to provide a service. He or she should do the best they can to do so. He or she should cash the checks. if the patient doesn’t listen, he or she should shrug, and shut up.

FWIW, I actually think anyone should be able to refuse service for any reason, so this doesn’t bother me. Your reasons however, just made the doctors seem petty and whiny. However, you can in trouble with the law if they don;t deem to your reasons valid. Since those determinations are arbitrary, I see them and silly. You should be able to hire or fire whomever you want, regardless of your reasons, and the same rulles can apply in demicine. There is ALWAYS someone else who will take another person’s castoffs in the interest of compassion or profit.

 

[He_Man]

I am with the doctors on this one. An attorney whose client would not follow his advice might well withdraw his service. Private schools expel children that do not follow the rules. Public schools require appropriate immunization. If parents decline immunization there is no reason for a doctor to think that such parents will stop there and do their own thing in other areas, like finishing a regiment of antibiotics because they disagree with the dosage.

The problem is, as mentioned, the rules only selectively apply. Try firing someone for being overweight because that is your company’s rule, and see what happens. Try refusing service to homosexuals because of a belief system, and see what happens. Trying forcing Catholic business to cover contraception via health insurance, and see… wait, never mind.

I don’t really care if a doctor dropped them, since there are other doctors, but only assuming we extend this courtesy of right to refuse service for ANY and ALL reasons, assuming such prohibitions are not spelled out in the Constitution explicitly (a woman’s right to vote, etc)…

 

[He_Man]

It is truly incompetant for parents to not have their children vaccinated.

Irony, thy name is Ringil.

Nice declaration on how other’s raise their child. It is their decision. The next time you want to belittle a parent as stupid for a decision, as least spell your insult of choice properly. No one cares about spelling and grammar on the internet, unless you are being nasty to other people. The word is incompetent.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

hygienehypothesis.com/

That is a very non-scientific statement of the hypothesis. Are you familiar with a cytokine storm? In many diseases (including smallpox) the body overreacts, and our own immune system ending not only the infection, but our lives as well.

The problem with the hypothesis as stated above is that vaccines do not prevent our bodies from contacting or fighting dirt and diseases. Modern sanitation and antibiotics do, but vaccines actually employ our own immune systems.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Because they are being paid? If I treat my car like trash and ignore everything the mechanic tells me, should he refuse service? Seems to me there was an episode of Seinfled about that…
FWIW, I actually think anyone should be able to refuse service for any reason, so this doesn’t bother me. Your reasons however, just made the doctors seem petty and whiny. However, you can in trouble with the law if they don;t deem to your reasons valid. Since those determinations are arbitrary, I see them and silly. You should be able to hire or fire whomever you want, regardless of your reasons, and the same rulles can apply in demicine. There is ALWAYS someone else who will take another person’s castoffs in the interest of compassion or profit.

The difference is that a doctor provides services which may significantly affect people’s lives. If someone is refusing his advice, they are wasting time that the doctor could have spent significantly helping other people. To say it is all about the money makes the doctor sound greedy. Doctors want to help people, should they spend time with people who won’t be helped when they could be spending it with people who actually need a doctor?

 

[He_Man]

The difference is that a doctor provides services which may significantly affect people’s lives. If someone is refusing his advice, they are wasting time that the doctor could have spent significantly helping other people. To say it is all about the money makes the doctor sound greedy. Doctors want to help people, should they spend time with people who won’t be helped when they could be spending it with people who actually need a doctor?

Ah, but that is a different argument.

You made the point that the doctor shouldn’t waste his or her time, as though that precious commodity was not handsomely paid for. Wasting a doctor’s time is not an issue. We all get pointless tasks at work over the course of time. As long as I am paid well, why would I care? Shut up and cash your check. Otherwise, don’t take my money, work for free, and you can be as principled as you want. Churches face this all the time with regards to tax-exemption. If the doctor truly doesn’t care about the money and only wants to help people, reimburse the couple for all prior aid and tell them they are no lonbger welcome - fine by me. I doubt you’ll see too many who will even comp them for that final visit.

Now if you want to argue the public health issue, that is fine, but not the point you made. You instead derisively show down the couple for wasting a doctor’s time, despite the belief by the couple that he is wasting theirs by promoting something they disagree with.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The difference is that a doctor provides services which may significantly affect people’s lives. If someone is refusing his advice, they are wasting time that the doctor could have spent significantly helping other people. To say it is all about the money makes the doctor sound greedy. Doctors want to help people, should they spend time with people who won’t be helped when they could be spending it with people who actually need a doctor?

A doctor who wants to help people doesn’t fire them.

 

[exnihilo]

but vaccines actually employ our own immune systems.

Of course they do. Actually all health care efforts absolutely depend on your body assisting. If a surgeon cuts you they still rely on your body to ultimately heal the wounds. If your body does not you’ll die. All medicines rely on your body to transport the substance to places where it will be effective. Many medicines employ your immune system in some way to actually effect the change. Vaccines are one of those. A vaccine ultimately causes an immune system response which is your body producing antibodies to the targeted disease. I think causing an immune system response in newborns might be unwise. I think causing an immune system response to three diseases at one time might be unwise. I think causing responses in short order might be unwise. The principle behind vaccines is wise. But that does not mean we should have three a day every day for a year. As with all treatments dose is very important. Any chemical that heals will also kill you in too high a dose.

The difference is that a doctor provides services which may significantly affect people’s lives. If someone is refusing his advice, they are wasting time that the doctor could have spent significantly helping other people. To say it is all about the money makes the doctor sound greedy. Doctors want to help people, should they spend time with people who won’t be helped when they could be spending it with people who actually need a doctor?

I know plenty of people, not asthmatics, not old, not with compromised immune systems, who go to the doctor with a cold. I know plenty who also typically get an antibiotic for a cold without any tests or indications of a bacterial infection. The doctors time is being wasted in these cases and worse he is helping to decrease the effectiveness of antibiotics.

Doctors are only one small part of the medical system. There are also insurance companies and medical corporations. I believe this has happened nationwide, but in my area you can hardly find a doctor not associated with a large medical corporation. I’ve experienced my doctors joining these corporations and watched as their level of care has diminished. The doctor is always rushed when I see him. It is hard to see my doctor. My choice if I need to see him this week is to see a PA. I have no problem with that but this means we lose the personal knowledge the doctor has about my health that is not always written down in the records (which seem to be poorly kept in general). His prices have gone up not down despite the supposed economies of scale. The system today is very much about money and patient care has suffered.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is, as mentioned, the rules only selectively apply. Try firing someone for being overweight because that is your company’s rule, and see what happens.

“Fire” is in quotes because a patient is not an employee. It think there is an analogy for a doctor ditching and overweight client, if that client tries to be fat because he is convinced by internet blogs that fat people live longer.

I agree with you on this right should be extended broader on refusal of service, on any grounds except Constitutionally protected grounds.

 

[He_Man]

“Fire” is in quotes because a patient is not an employee. It think there is an analogy for a doctor ditching and overweight client, if that client tries to be fat because he is convinced by internet blogs that fat people live longer.

I agree with you on this right should be extended broader on refusal of service, on any grounds except Constitutionally protected grounds.

A better example, and I agree on the last point.