No Shots, No Serivce

[chuckey]

According to this [http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/pediatricians-turn-away-kids-who-arent-vaccinated-2509592/] report on Yahoo! News , some pediatricians are refusing to give service to children who are not vaccinated. Since studies have been posted dispelling rumors that vaccines do not cause Autism, Pediatricians are now saying that parents have no reason to not get their kids vaccinated. According to pediatricians, by not getting your children vaccinated you are putting your kids and those around them at risk, in addition, by delaying vaccination schedules, your children are even more likely to get sick.

I think this is a great idea by doctors by forcing lazy or paranoid parents to keep their kids health in check. While this is only a rule in some clinics, I believe that this should be common place for most if not all doctor offices. The only way I can see this policy being a problem for some is for those who do not have health insurance.

Go idea, Bad idea? Discuss.

 

[antidonkey]

Bit of a dick move on part of the doctors. I'd imagine it goes against the hippocratic oath too.

So......yes it's dumb not to get your kids vaccinated but it's even dumber for the docs to turn them away.

 

[Richardplex]

And purely good news for those who have free healthcare *sips Earl Grey tea*

 

[Jodah]

And purely good news for those who have free healthcare *sips Earl Grey tea*

Hey! I don't have free health care but I too, am drinking some Earl Grey.

OT: If their reasoning is to protect other children I'm all for it. The problem with not vaccinating your children isn't that it can hurt them. That is the parent's decision. The problem is it can harm other children who have medical reasons or are too young to be vaccinated themselves.

There was actually a Law and Order episode on this very issue. Granted that show is fiction but it does raise some interesting questions. A mother refused to have her child vaccinated and, because of that, another child contracted a disease (measles I believe) while the two were at a playground and died from it. The child that died was too young to receive the vaccination and wouldn't have normally contracted the disease if not exposed to an older non-vaccinated child.

 

[Limecake]

Bit of a dick move on part of the doctors. I'd imagine it goes against the hippocratic oath too.

my first thought exactly.

especially the line from the (modern) oath:

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

however the oath also says

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

so this kinda falls in a grey area as far as the oath is concerned, plus a lot of institutions consider the oath outdated and it's more of a tradition now anyway.

I think it's a terrible idea, if Parent's are too ignorant to get their children vaccinated the child shouldn't suffer. I understand that what the doctor's are trying to stress is that vaccines are important, However they are going about this the wrong way.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I think it's dangerous not to have your kids vaccinated and I can see where the Doctors are coming from but I still can't help but feel it's irresponsible for Doctors to refuse a child medical treatment because of the ideals of the parents. Then again, if you don't trust the medical community it seems backasswards to refuse vaccinations to keep your child from contracting illnesses but take your child to a real Doctor anyway and demand treatments and medicines for the child you are purposefully exposing to illnesses. *Sigh*

 

[uttaku]

And purely good news for those who have free healthcare *sips Earl Grey tea*

Good god sir, earl grey tea in the afternoon? Have you no taste? That is an evening tea!

 

[Thaluikhain]

OT: If their reasoning is to protect other children I'm all for it. The problem with not vaccinating your children isn't that it can hurt them. That is the parent's decision. The problem is it can harm other children who have medical reasons or are too young to be vaccinated themselves.

Erm...yes, exposing other kids is bad, but I'd say that a child getting sick cause their parents are fucking retards is a bit of a problem as well.

 

[Richardplex]

And purely good news for those who have free healthcare *sips Earl Grey tea*

Good god sir, earl grey tea in the afternoon? Have you no taste? That is an evening tea!

I injured my foot recently and can't limp over to restock on Green Tea, and hell if I'm going to touch coffee. My limey cells were also running a bit dry, so I had to recharge them.

 

[Jodah]

OT: If their reasoning is to protect other children I'm all for it. The problem with not vaccinating your children isn't that it can hurt them. That is the parent's decision. The problem is it can harm other children who have medical reasons or are too young to be vaccinated themselves.

Erm...yes, exposing other kids is bad, but I'd say that a child getting sick cause their parents are fucking retards is a bit of a problem as well.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that at the age(s) in question, the decision is completely upon the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean they will make the right one.

I'm just a major Libertarian in that I feel everything should be allowed until it has a direct impact on someone else who is capable of making their own choices. In this case Parent A's decision to not vaccinate has a huge impact on the medical costs and life decisions of Parent B. I discount the impact on the children for now, because while it can be extremely detrimental, their decisions are made by their parents. (I am talking pre-speech age btw. The whole debate around age of maturity is a whole different can of worms.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

OT: If their reasoning is to protect other children I'm all for it. The problem with not vaccinating your children isn't that it can hurt them. That is the parent's decision. The problem is it can harm other children who have medical reasons or are too young to be vaccinated themselves.

Erm...yes, exposing other kids is bad, but I'd say that a child getting sick cause their parents are fucking retards is a bit of a problem as well.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that at the age(s) in question, the decision is completely upon the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean they will make the right one.

I dunno...it sounds like being a neglectful parent to me, the sort of thing the government should get involved in.

 

[intheweeds]

Bit of a dick move on part of the doctors. I'd imagine it goes against the hippocratic oath too.

my first thought exactly.

especially the line from the (modern) oath:

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

however the oath also says

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

so this kinda falls in a grey area as far as the oath is concerned, plus a lot of institutions consider the oath outdated and it's more of a tradition now anyway.

I think it's a terrible idea, if Parent's are too ignorant to get their children vaccinated the child shouldn't suffer. I understand that what the doctor's are trying to stress is that vaccines are important, However they are going about this the wrong way.

Yeah the oath itself is mainly a representation of what they actually are required to be ethically these days rather than a word for word legal contract. Anyone going into healthcare in a serious way has to take lots of medical ethics courses. Your just promising to the medical association to do all the things you learned when you take the oath. I know a little about it since my g/f is going through this type of schooling now.

I don't think it really has to do with the oath at all in this case, though. They are refusing a new patient, not refusing treatment. A pediatrician has always been able to refuse new patients if they already have more than they can handle. I think they're stretching that a bit with this vaccination thing, but that's what it seems to me.

Now, if we were talking about a hospital emergency room refusing kids we would be talking about something completely different. You cannot refuse treatment to someone who you know needs it. Even if they have some disease you or others might catch.

I think that's where the confusion is. Of course its just my two cents.

 

[Korolev]

Look, I am just as Pro-Vaccine as the next thinking person. I AM an actual scientist and I have looked into this matter - there is no good, solid evidence that Vaccines cause autism. 99% of people in the Western World have been vaccinated (remember, that's how they got rid of Smallpox). Is 99% of everyone in the US and the UK and Germany and France and Japan and Australia Autistic? No. And that was with the old vaccines. New vaccines are (for the most part) safer, with stricter manufacturing standards and storage conditions and more effective.

But to actively not help children who aren't vaccinated..... why punish the child for the stupidity or paranoia of the parent?

Also, like it or not, people have a right to refuse medicine. As big a proponent of modern, evidence-based medicine as I am, we've got to respect the right of others to refuse medical treatment. Will this reduce herd immunity? Will it prevent the eradication of diseases? Yes. But the right to refuse treatment is a precious liberty. Even if I think some parents are utter and complete morons for not getting their child vaccinated, the right to refuse treatment is so precious as to be worth the existence of diseases. Once given up, liberties are hard to take back.

Then again, if it's a private practice, doesn't the paediatrician have the right to refuse service? If it's a government run hospital or a hospital emergency room, they have to treat any patient that wants treatment (even war criminals!) but if it's a private practice, then maybe they do have the legal right to refuse treatment, although I would say that morally they should try to treat the child.

Sure, anti-vaxers are ignorant, paranoid and have persecution-complexes up the wazoo, but their child shouldn't suffer for their actions. And if you are responsible enough to vaccinate your kid, they're in no danger from the non-vaccinated kid.

Then again, it might convince some parents to vaccinate their kid or to look more closely into vaccines.

I'm on the fence about this. One one hand, I PASSIONATELY believe in the efficacy of vaccines and the tremendous benefit they bring to society (The fact that I can go swimming without being afraid of Polio is testament to the power of vaccines). But on the other hand (my second, not as good hand), I believe in health for all who want it, and that the child shouldn't suffer for the delusions of the parents.

 

[AWAR]

Why is it a great idea, in the end it's the child that is not getting any treatment. It's not the child's fault that his parents didn't vaccinate him why should the child suffer?

 

[Brandon237]

Mixed bag, give the parents two warning rounds, after that no treatment. Because I agree with them that this is damn important, but it is rather cruel.

 

[Daverson]

Bit of a dick move on part of the doctors. I'd imagine it goes against the hippocratic oath too.

Not really. Quite the opposite, if anything. It both encourages the parent to get their children vaccinated, and minimizes the risk of vaccinated children getting dangerous diseases from vaccinated (read: carrier) children.

 

[boringanarchy]

Mixed bag, give the parents two warning rounds, after that no treatment. Because I agree with them that this is damn important, but it is rather cruel.

This, though I would also encourage having the parents arrested for gross negligence for not having their child vaccinated.