Site Navigation
- Blog
- Topics
-
Features
-
Polls
- How should middle schools present sex education to students?
- Does teaching "intelligent design" in public schools violate the separation of church and state?
- Do you think life exists outside our solar system?
- Do you think people can become addicted to playing video games?
- Do you think that race is an important factor in sports performance?
- Do you think this year's hurricane season will be better or worse than last year?
- Do you think you could beat a chimp in a test of memory?
- How many televisions does your home have?
- How much do you sleep on average?
- If you could have a super sense which would it be?
- If you had an extra $35 million would you be a space tourist?
- Is giving to others an act of self interest?
- Is the US falling behind in math and science education?
- Laughter can help your heart and even maybe your relationships. How many times a day do you laugh?
- Malaria still kills millions every year. Do you think we can eradicate this disease in the next 50 years?
- Pick a name for the falcon chicks at the High Bridge Power Plant
- Scientists just found a new 'planet' out past Pluto. What should it be called?
- Should companies be able to patent human genes?
- Should courts have the power to order sex offenders to receive hormonal injections?
- Should doctors end their relationships with families who refuse to vaccinate their children?
- Should parents be able to select the sex of their children using genetic testing?
- Should race remain on the US Census?
- Should species that are endangered due to natural causes receive funding to protect them?
- Should we get rid of the US penny?
- Stem cell research could save lives, but brings up ethical questions. Should it be more tightly regulated?
- Top Science Stories of 2005
- What's your favorite branch of science?
- What do you think about nanotechnology?
- What do you think is the most important thing for NASA to work on in the coming years?
- What do you think whales are talking about when they sing?
- What should we name the new peregrine falcon chicks?
- What was your overall impression of BODY WORLDS?
- Which alternative energy tech will you be using the most in the next 10 years?
- Which presidential candidate do you think will better advocate for the interests of science and technology?
- Will you be getting a flu shot this fall? Why or why not?
- Would you buy/eat food dipped in edible plastic, which could make it safer?
- Would you buy/eat meat from cloned animals?
- Would you donate your body to science after you die?
- Object of the Month
- Scientist on the Spot
- Changing Seasons
- Browse Images
- Browse Tags
- Links
-
Polls
- Community
- Exhibit
- About
Be part of the buzz...Login/Register
Should doctors end their relationships with families who refuse to vaccinate their children?
25% (238 votes)
Yes. (Add a comment and tell us why.)
59% (566 votes)
No. (Why?)
16% (149 votes)
In certain circumstances. (Add a comment: what circumstances?)
Total votes: 953
I guess people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to vaccinate. But doctors also have an obligation to provide a certain standard of care, and if patients want to use a doctor's services but insist on substandard care, then the doctor should be able to drop those patients.
I think that, if a doctor is the ONLY doctor available to treat someone, then they are ethically obligated to do that. Especially if the patient has an acute problem, like a case of measles! But if there ISN'T an acute problem, and there are other doctors who don't have an ethical problem treating patients who refuse vaccines, then I think a doctor is within his or her rights to drop those patients from their practice. I think it sends a very strong message about just how serious the repercussions of avoiding vaccines can be, both for individual patients and for whole communities.
the trouble with vaccine refusal is that it exposes the population to the return of serius diseases. parents don't remember the terrible scource of some of the diseases our grandparents suffered from.
How can refusal of a vaccination expose the general population to serious disease? Isn't the person who was vaccinated protected? The only person at risk is the one who refuses to be vaccinated. I believe I should be able to decide weather or not to vaccinate my children not the government.\r\n
What serious epidemics are you refering too? What do you actually know about diseases from the past, what caused them to affect the population at the time. I am tired of hearing these things from people that have no idea what they are talking about.
This is the most uniformed answer, and sadly one I hear often. First of all, if we are going off of YOUR "beliefs" , that people SHOULD be vaccinated, then those of us who are not should be no threat to you correct? If you have your vaccinations, aren't they supposed to "protect" you from such dieses?, if we play by your rules then we should be the ones worried. The truth is however is that you are not protected. People are bullied into vaccinations, being threatened with being removed from school, and are never really told they have a choice in the first place. On top of all of this, have you ever looked up what's in this "vaccine" you are INJECTING into your bloodstream?, I'm guessing no so i will go ahead and share a few of them; human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue,ammonium sulfate, formaldehyde,vesicle fluid from calf skins,chick embryo, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal,monkey kidney cells,residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and proteins, bovine serum, hydrolyzed gelatin,rhesus monkey fetal lung cells. Now I would honestly like to see someone, if handed that list which only includes SOME of the ingredients in COMMONLY administered vaccines and sign their name at the bottom saying that it is 100% okay with them to be injected with that, and if you do, than that is your right, is it is mine to say no. I don't think the battle here should be to shoot or not to shoot, we should be more concerned with people getting the chance to make an informed decision by letting them know its their right ot decided in the first place.
If Vaccination is safe, then the only people who would be affected are those who were not vaccinated.
We know plenty about diseases from the past.
And the risk of death or disability caused by infectious disease is hardly a relic of prehistory.
We have good medical records going back at least 100 years that tell us what diseases were circulating, who died, who recovered, and what treatments were tried. (We have other evidence that allows us to reconstruct that history even further back in time—to prehistory, even.)
There are people who post on this site that lost loved ones to then-routine childhood illnesses, or became ill themselves, recovered, but live with disabilities related to the illness.
Polio, for example, terrified parents during the 1950s. Thanks to the vaccines, introduced in 1952 and 1959, many of us don’t remember how scary polio really was. But it isn’t gone: cases popped up right here in Minnesota last year.
Or how about mumps? An outbreak of mumps sickened unvaccinated or undervaccinated people in Iowa and surrounding states in April.
I know you’re thinking that better sanitation and new drugs can prevent deaths from infectious disease. And they can. But they aren’t a panacea. Read these posts about the fears some historians and researchers have about the H5N1 avian flu.
You may be thinking, “OK, I didn’t get H5N1 flu, so I don’t know what that’s like. But I had chickenpox as a kid, and I don’t see why I need to vaccinate my kids against it. What’s the big deal?” Well, chickenpox (varicella) can kill. Before the vaccine, chickenpox killed 100 people in the US (most of them previously healthy) and sent 11,000 to the hospital. And, of course, there’s the economic and academic cost of time spent away from work or school, usually for a week or more. Since the vaccine was licensed in 1995, cases of chickenpox have fallen by 80%.
Outbreaks of illnesses like measles and whooping cough appear whenever clusters of parents, for whatever reason, refuse to vaccinate their children. (The outbreaks cause illness and death, and we aren’t talking about poor, malnourished people without access to health care or modern medical treatment. A big cluster of cases appeared in a wealthy neighborhood outside Boulder, Colorado.)
(From “Bucking the Herd, by Arthur Allen, first published in The Atlantic Monthly: September 2002)
Read the case studies related to each illness on the Vaccine Information site. These are recent cases, and people get sick and die for NO REASON that makes sense to me.
So…I guess I don’t really understand your comment. We know that these diseases kill. We know how they kill. And we know how to prevent them. Vaccinate!
"Or how about mumps? An outbreak of mumps sickened unvaccinated or undervaccinated people in Iowa and surrounding states in April."
Many of those people who were sickened by Mumps were vaccinated:
Of the 133 patients with investigated vaccine history, 87 (65%) had documentation of receiving 2 doses, 19 (14%) 1 dose, and eight (6%) no doses; vaccine status could not be documented in 19 (14%) patientslink.
Here is a search from the VAERS database of patients who have died. Many of them young children.
link
These too are recent cases, and people get sick and die because of vaccinations.
Don't walk in thinking vaccines are safe also. My daughter which was 6
at the time was vaccinated with varicella and Hepatitis A and within
12 hours was suffering seizures and myclonic muscles movements. She
has been in the hospital 6 times and numerous er visits. She has missed
50 days of school. The doctors really never mentioned anything other
than she was due for these and our school system requires them. But
the question is here should the doctors end their relationship with us
to me no. They have to be convincing. I work for a mechanic shop and
if we worked on a car and the person had a wreck due to parts failure
(not mine) I would be folowing up with the customer to see how they
were doing because of genuine concern. Our pediatrrician after the
first notice of the reaction never followed up again. Which we have
changed to several other doctors.
WooHoo good answer. If doctor's drop you because you dont want to vaccinate your child, what is that saying to everyone? Thats like saying if your child has a condition and the doctor recommends treating it with a medication that will have 20% of killing them if they take or and you decide not to take that risk,the docto says ok I can no longer treat you if you dont!!! Bottom line is a doctor o the government can not force you to vaccinate your child if you feel it could harm them. I guarantee all these parents that think parents that do not vaccinate their kids are terrible parnets have not had a special needs child! Not every child may have a reaction to a vaccine,but someone can be genetically pre-disposed to having a reaction to a vaccine. The only thing is you dont know it till its to late!!
You know, a situation similar to the one you describe does come up sometimes. For example, last August, a 16-year-old boy with Hodgkin's disease was allowed, by a court and after a long legal battle, to opt out of chemotherapy. (Instead, he will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatements. And his family must provide the court with updates on his treatment plan and condition every three months until he's either cured or 18.) Cancer treatments have risks. And this boy and his parents didn't want to run the risks of the treatment plan they were given.
But I have to say, for the record, that the risks of regular childhood vaccines are vanishingly small. They're so small that they're hard to even quantify. They're nowhere near 20%.
You're right: the government cannot force you to vaccinate your child. And the government doesn't.
The oath that doctors take (as well as the policies of most health care settings) ensures that a doctor won't refuse care in an acute situation. If you're having a heart attack, dangerously dehydrated, experiencing an overdose, bleeding profusely, in shock, etc, you will receive care (assuming you want it) no matter what. But if you consistently go against the advice of your medical provider, who is then responsible in some way for your health, shouldn't that doctor be able to sever their relationship with you so that you can find someone whose philosophy better meshes with yours?
Danielle, you are misinformed on several points.
Mass vaccination against infectious disease works because most of us are immune. That general immunity prevents diseases from raging through a community. However, there are categories of people who cannot receive vaccines, but are at increased risk for complications should they get sick. These are people with immune system problems, heart problems, very young children, etc. Also, there are people who get vaccinated but, for one reason or another, never develop antibodies. Sometimes people develop an immunity and then lose it later. Choosing not to vaccinate puts yourself and all those other folks at risk. Further, you're depending on the immunity of others to protect your family.
As for your "vaccine recipe"...It's kind of misleading, because it's just a mishmash of potential vaccine ingredients from all sorts of vaccines, including some (like the smallpox vaccine) that aren't part of the childhood vaccination schedule.
Aluminum sulfate, aluminum hydroxide, and aluminum phosphate are used as vaccine adjuvants (which boost the body's immune response and let us use less of the infectious agent). They are also used as preservatives. They've been used in this way for more than 70 years, and they've been extensively tested. Further, if you want to limit your exposure to these products, you'd be far better off reading your food labels--aluminum salts are EVERYWHERE, and you're getting far more exposure from other products than vaccines.
Thimerosal is NOT contained in any vaccines currently licensed for pediatric use and included in the routine childhood immunization schedule in the United States EXCEPT the flu shot. (And you can get a thimerosal-free flu vaccine if you ask for it.) Thimerosal has also been extensively evaluated, over decades, in hundreds of thousands of people, in different countries, and the link between thimerosal and, say, autism has been conclusively disproven.
Formaldehyde is essential for human metabolism and required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids. All human beings have naturally-occurring formaldehyde in their systems. The Vaccine Education Center says,
Bovine serum and gelatin are growth factors used to help the viruses grow in special cells in the lab. ("Vesicle fluid from calf skins" is contained in the smallpox vaccine--since smallpox is similar to cowpox--but it's not part of routine childhood vaccines.)
Some vaccines (but by no means all) are grown in human fibroblast cells obtained from two therapeutic abortions done in the early 1960s. Those same cells have been growing in labs for decades. (And MRC-5 cells are some of those.) Deborah Wexler, MD, of the Immunization Action Coalition, tells me that,
Some vaccines (but by no means all, and not many routine childhood vaccines) are grown in eggs, hence the occasional presence of chick cells.
As far as I know, monkey fetal lung cells are potentially present only in the rabies vaccine. And if you're unlucky enough to need the rabies vaccine, the risk of NOT vaccinating FAR outweighs the risk of administering the vaccine, since rabies is virtually always fatal.
None of the elements you list is present in every vaccine, or present in significant amounts. When they are present, it's for a reason. The list may sound scary, but the truth isn't. "Education" about vaccines and vaccine safety doesn't start and end with a list of stuff that a vaccine may or may not contain. You have to know why each element is there, how it's processed, and what the real risks (based on data, not anecdotes on the Internet) are.
By the way, vaccines aren't "injected directly into your bloodstream." They're administered intramuscularly, subcutaneously, or intranasally.
All vaccine components are public information. Interested parties can read any vaccine package insert by going to the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research’s page for approved products, clicking on the vaccine name, and then clicking on the “Label” link.
It is your right to choose. Choose wisely.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i recently decided not to vaccinate my 7 month old~ the whole thing scares me half to death!!!
Thank you for your comment. Why are the people who choose to immunize continue to be so fearful of the diseases?
If the vaccines were truley working then people whose children are vaccinated should have nothing to worry about in the event that they come in contact with a certain disease. Studies show that these diseases are on the rise among the vaccinated, raising questions as to the reliability of the vaccines. Studies also show that the diseases were on the decrease before the vaccines were invented showing that human immune systems were already developing their own defenses against those deadly diseases. In the end it's a persoanl decision...parents shouldn't be bullied either way. We are all trying to do what we feel is best to protect our families.
The non-vaccinated person may come into contact with other non-vaccinated people, and spread the disease. They may come into contact with people who want to get vaccinated, but haven't done so yet. They may, to be blunt about it, come into contact with your children. Or your children may come into contact with mine.
No one is more opposed to nanny-state politics than I am. I'm a big proponent of individual responsibility. But, the choices we make as individuals play out in society. The person who chooses not to be vaccinated poses a threat not only to theirself, but to society at large. And society has the right to protect itself from such threats.
If society has a right to protect itself from such threats as you mentioned, then how should an individual protect himself/herself from vaccine damages?
Or, are you saying that the wellbeing of society should supersede an individual's wellbeing?
If a person gets drunk and then drives a car, they are a threat to health and safety -- not only their own, but everybody else on the road. Society long ago agreed that we have the right -- the obligation -- to arrest these people, rescind their licenses, and otherwise remove the threat. Individuals then have the choice: take steps to not get drunk, or take steps to not drive.
If a person carries a disease, they are a threat to health and safety -- not only their own, but to everyone they might come in contact with. Society has a right and obligation to protect itself from irresponsible individuals. Individuals then have a choice: avoid the disease by getting vaccinated, or avoid other people.
As noted elsewhere, the dangers of vaccination are vanishingly small. The dangers of not getting vaccinated are enormous -- not only to you, but to everyone.
If a person wishes to drink to excess, they need to live in such a way that they do not pose a threat to others. Similarly, if a person wishes to not be vaccinated, they to must find a way to live that does not endanger other people. Basically, become a hermit -- which is a pretty steep price to pay for misunderstanding the science.
Funny... I guess we should go around and test everyone. Then ship off anyone with a potentially spreadable disease: HIV, AIDS, Herpes, etc to some kind of "diseased concentration camp" where they could kill each other by "sharing" their diseases... Comparing people who are choosing a different path based on their, often, IN DEPTH study of the vaccination issue with an irresponsible drunk shows how fear can blind us to serious consideration of worthy discussions and relevant information...
Someone who refuses a safe vaccination and thus threatens their own life and the lives of others is, in my opinion, the very definition of irresponsibility.
No one needs to be shipped off anywhere -- though, under certain circumstances, quarantine is warranted.
There are categories of people who cannot receive vaccines, but are at increased risk for complications should they get sick. These are people with immune system problems, heart problems, very young children, etc. Also, there are people who get vaccinated but, for one reason or another, never develop antibodies. Sometimes people develop an immunity and then lose it later. Choosing not to vaccinate puts all those folks at risk.
Here's a personal spin: I was given all the recommended childhood vaccines, including rubella (aka German measles), but my immunity didn't last. I didn't know that until I was pregnant with my older daughter. Rubella isn't fun for anyone, but it can cause fetal death or mental retardation, blindness, deafness, and birth defects in newborns if their mothers get the disease early in pregnancy. There are fewer rubella cases in the US than there used to be, but there are still outbreaks. And people with rubella are contagious for about a week before symptoms appear. OB/GYNs screen most pregnant women for immunity, but lots of pregnant women aren't seen by a doctor until they're 8 weeks along--and already potentially exposed. I got revaccinated as soon as my daughter was born.
A new study suggests that exposure to pollution, particularly polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, reduces children's immune response to vaccinations.
This finding may partially explain why some vaccines don't "take" in some children.
Your immunity didn't last because the only way to develop immunity to any disease is naturally - by having the disease and your body fighting it off. Vaccinations have everyone incorrectly believing that they have immunity to all of these diseases when we don't. None of them last because you cannot artificially immunize someone against a disease they've never been exposed to. This has never been more true than now as we see diseases (like the flu) mutate into different strains every year. It is impossible for the vaccines to to keep up and provide any kind of lasting immunity.
A lot of people believe what you do, but it's just not backed up by scientific fact.
You absolutely can develop immunity without contracting an infectious disease. Think about the successful campaign to eliminate smallpox, or variola. Smallpox was, for hundreds of years, among the most deadly and persistent of human diseases. It killed more than 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Yet by 1977, through a massive worldwide outbreak detection and vaccination program, public health workers managed to eradicate the disease.
Also, you misunderstand why different strains of influenza circulate every year. Since the influenza virus circulates widely, and can jump from domestic animals like poultry or pigs, in which is it also always mutating, we do see different strains each year. (Not necessarily new-to-science strains each year, but different strains.) It would be impossible to stamp out influenza for good without vaccinating billions of people, along with many domestic animals, for exactly the flu strains circulating at that particular moment in time. But it's a practical problem, not a research one. In theory, you could do it, if you could first target the proper strains and then manufacture and deliver those vaccines.
Some vaccines do confer lifetime immunity; others don't. It often has to do with the method of manufacture. Generally speaking, a vaccine based on a killed germ or just its antigens will prevent infection for a while, but you may need multiple innoculations and regular booster shots. Vaccines based on live, weakened viruses, on the other hand, often produce lifelong immunity. That's why it's important to follow the vaccination schedule or to talk to your doctor about how you can safely modify it.
I have read some of your posts and I keep seeing that one category that cannot receive vaccines are very young children. Then why do we start vaccination at day one of life? Then again at one month, three months, etc.? It is a scary thing to me and I am trying to become informed on both sides.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given at birth.
Regular childhood immunizations besides hepatitis B begin at 2 months and continue throughout the first years of life. Influenza vaccinations are now available for children over 6 months old; older guidelines restricted the use of influenza vaccines to people over the age of 2. (Here's a list of recommended vaccines and the ages at which they're given. And here's the CDC's answers to questions commonly asked by parents, including one about safety of vaccines in infants.)
That means that, for the first two months of life, infants have little protection against infectious diseases. (Infants, and especially nursing infants, acquire some immunity from their mothers, but only immunity to the illnesses the mothers are immune to.)
And many of these vaccines require a few doses to achieve full immunity.
That's why it's really important that everyone who CAN be vaccinated do so. Immunity in most of the population helps to protect those who aren't immune.
Read up on herd immunity.
Um...read the part about herd immunity and understand that some folks CAN'T be vaccinated.
You say,
Unfortunately, both of those statements are untrue, although widespread in anti-vaccination literature.
There are actually at least 10 widespread misconceptions that lead some parents to refuse vaccines. You've hit on two of them. Want to know what the other eight are? And find out why they're untrue? Visit the Quackwatch immunization site.
We can agree on a few things, though. No one should be bullied, medical decisions are personal decisions, and we're all doing the best we can for our families.
all should be vacinated.
i agree!
No everyone should not be vaccinated I am a disabled nurse who suffers from multiple sclerosis. I am here to tell you my grown daughter had seizures after her 18 month shots. I hope none of my grandchildren as well as my future grandchildren choose vaccines until they are made safe. My auto immune disease is no fun and let me say as a nurse you get vaccinated and I am shocked at the number of medical proffesional with MS in fact the government has seen such a high percentage of people coming back from the war with MS that they have donated 50 million dollars to try to figure out why. Maybe they should start by looking at all the vaccines these military people are getting. By the way did you know your child gets the same dose as an adult? Would you give the same oral dose of medication that you take to your child I would hope not. Just a little footnote . People with Multiple Sclerosis do not boost their immune system because are disease will attack are neurological system harder causing more lesoins to our brain and spine. So here we take all these vaccinations for protection and the toxins that they use to perserve them set some of us up for other problems later. I pray that all parents look at all the ingredients being injected into their child. You would read the insert before giving your child oral medications do the same if you choose to vacinate so you can be informed of what all is being injected into your child or yourself . I wish I would have and I am a nurse but had to get sick before looking at the whole picture.
Doctors should be able to discharge patients for any good reason. If people are idiots, and choose not to be vaccinated, they have to live (or die) with the consequences.
As a person who prefers to research scientific information and statistics when making medical decisions, I have learned that the possible risks associated with receiving some vaccines is actually greater to the individual than the risk of ever contracting the disease. Also, the typical symptoms associated with actual contraction of(several of)the diseases are basically minor for the average, otherwise healthy,indivudual. Every person has been given the right (see Patients Bill of Rights) to make INTELLIGENT and informed medical decisions for themselves and their families. This right should apply to all medical decisions without exception. As far as "idiots" go -- One could argue that the "idiot" is the one who is unwilling or unable to make informed decisions for themselves!
The poll question isn't about whether or not parents should have the right to refuse vaccines for their children. The question is whether or not doctors should have the right to drop patients who act against medical advice.
It's good that you're a thinking parent and that you seek information before making medical decisions.
But you say,
Not so.
Here's a discussion of the real risks and benefits of vaccination.
You sometimes see "horror stories" about possible risks of vaccines in the news media and on the Internet. And parents who see these may believe that their children would be better off not having their shots. But it's just not true. Children are far more likely to stay healthy if they receive their immunizations than if they do not. If you have concerns about your child's immunizations, you should discuss them with your health care provider.
Doctor's are paid by these pharmaceutical makers for every product they dispense,so of course they are going to push you to vaccinate. Its a biased opinion. And if you think doctor's wouldnt jeopardize a patients health over money,think again! Try going to a doctor without insurance needing an expensive procedure,see how many other doctor's they try to pawn you off on. I dont care what they say doctors are in it for the money. Everything career is about money why else would we have one.
Here's some information that can help you make an informed decision:
Some tips for evaluating immunization information on the internet
Reliable sources of immunization information
Immunization issues/Vaccine misinformation
(A particularly relevant section of this site reads:
It's followed by common claims found on these sites, and the facts that disprove them.)
Vaccine safety: Cause or coincidence?
Immunization science
Common concerns about vaccines: what you should know
Vaccine information for the public and health professionals
Includes:
Not all vaccinations have proven to be successful in fighting diseases, especially the flu vaccine.
i think that no one should have to end a relationship just because of different points of view on medical practice. Wether they argee or not they can still be friends....and thats the big picture!
It's true that the flu vaccine sometimes doesn't provide complete protection. Vaccine manufacturers have to decide in advance which strains to protect against, and sometimes the virus that hits us doesn't quite match the vaccine. Still, the partial immunity that even a slightly mismatched vaccine confers is better than complications of the flu for people in high-risk groups.
But, more to the point, the flu vaccine is not required for school-age children in Minnesota.
The required vaccines include:
Individual doctors may recommend more vaccinations, including Hepatitis A, Pneumococcal conjugate, and, yes, the influenza vacccine.
The flu vaccine is effective in preventing you from becoming ill only when exposed to the flu that you were immunized against. There are several types of flu that a person can get.
it depends onthe vacination.
It does depend on the vacine because then people would pay if there is a costly vaccination.\r\n
Insurance covers vaccination. And Vaccines for Children is a federally-funded program that works with states and doctors to make sure that all children have access to all recommended vaccines.
No it does not. I have Blue Cross Blue Shield and I pay for all immunizations
Blue Cross/Blue Shield offers a lot of different plans. I did a quick Google search and found many Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that DO cover vaccination, but, obviously, you know your policy best.
The point is that no one should go unvaccinated because of the cost of the shots. Many insurance plans cover them as part of their preventive medicine programs, and there's financial assistance for people who can't afford them otherwise.
isnt this america? im shocked at all the votes of yes on this poll... we have "freedom" here... people are supposed to be allowed to make their own choices based on what they believe
Sure, this is America. And we let people make their own decisions about their health care. But this poll is not about a person's right to accept or refuse vaccination. It's about a doctor's right to refuse or obligation to provide care to patients that are acting against medical advice.
And, tangentially, it's about the repercussions of people's individual decisions to vaccinate or not.
If you follow the links to other vaccine stories, you'll see that a large percentage of parents refusing vaccines are doing so for concerns over the vaccines' safety or because they don't think that the diseases the vaccines protect against are really a problem. Very few people are refusing vaccines on moral or religious grounds.
Are you worried about vaccine safety? What would you like to know about routine childhood immunizations?
I think that people with no money to get vaccines should get doctors to see them\r\n
See the above post, "Insurance covers..."
In America, no one should go without vaccines because he or she can't afford them. And there are programs to make sure this is so. Certainly, if MONEY is the reason why a person is refusing a vaccine, a physician shouldn't drop them from their practice; there's financial assistance out there.
This poll is asking, though, whether doctors should have the right to drop patients who, after education about the risks of refusing them, still decide not to get the recommended vaccines.
You are so right. That's why I'm happy to be a citizen of the U.S. I also believe that people should get flu shots!!!!!
because the doctor takes an oath to help patients not to guide their moral choices.\r\n
This post got me wondering about the Hippocratic Oath, and what exactly doctors promise to do:
I think by doctors staying in connection with their patients that there may be hope that in time people might change their mind. Sadly people have developed cures and it will and does save many lives. People have choices but I feel that if you choose to live in the united states and a shot will save lives them you should, it does not affect religion. I am a christian and believe that God gave men insight and wisdom to combat the things of the world. If it was experientmental them that can rise questions. Keep up the good work doctors who really care about people and theirs lives.
Because they should show every body the same respect even if they are ignorant.\r\n\r\n\r\n
yes
people who don't vaccinate their children not only put their children at risk for serious diseases, they put the whole population at risk. They don't seem to realize that our country is free of these diseases precisely because people have been vaccinated. Just show them a child mangled by polio, and ask them if they would wish that on their child. I don't think that doctors should be obligated to treat children who have not been vaccinated and get a disease. And they should especially not treat their parents!
By the way you right now are not "immune" to any of these diseases that all these children are being vaccinated for. Even if you got the vaccine when you were little the "immunity" is long gone now. Vaccines do not give you a lifetime of "immunity" to these diseases. So you and every other adult in this country to should not be treated by doctor because you are putting society at risk by not vaccinating yourself as an adult!!!!
Some vaccines do confer lifetime immunity; others don't.
Generally speaking, a vaccine based on a killed germ or just its antigens will prevent infection for a while, but you may need multiple innoculations and regular booster shots.
Vaccines based on live, weakened viruses, on the other hand, often produce lifelong immunity.
I think that it is the personal choice of a parent wether or not their child should be vaccinated. The doctor, though, should recommend it and leave the decision to the parent.
i think that certain families have different views on what is right and wrong and it isn't a doctors right to take away the right of a person if the do not agree with the matter or circumstance. it is their buisness
You're absolutely right. But the question isn't about whether or not doctors should vaccinate children against their parents' wishes; the question is about whether or not a doctor should drop patients who go against medical advice (i.e. refuse vaccinations).
They can't MAKE you get a shot, but they don't have to treat you, either.
there is a certain amount of risk in any vacination, and many other medical procedures..... doctors should be able to provide information, but the ultimate choice should belong to the person who is risking their own or their childrens health with a vacine. Read the disclaimers you MUST sign before getting vacinated for anything. Are doctors, the school districts, the state etc. willing to pay for and otherwise take on the risk if your health is harmed? You can not force people to be vacinated, then at the same time say- well, your kid might die or be injured by this procedure, but we can not be held responsible for any of that.
No one is being "forced" to do anything.
You're right; you should read the information your doctor provides, and every medical decision should involve informed consent.
There is a certain amount of risk associated with any medical procedure. (There's a risk involved with crossing the street, too, and I don't hear a lot of people advocating staying on the same block because it's dangerous to cross streets and no one else will assume the liability if something happens to you.) Health care providers report all reactions to vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). You can even call VAERS yourself at 1-800-822-7967 if you think your child has had a reaction. And in the rare event that a vaccine injures a child, he or she may be compensated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). 1-800-338-2382. Sounds pretty responsible to me...
People take risks all the time, like not vaccinating their kids, because they don't know how to evaluate the REAL risk.
I can't say it enough: the risks involved with receiving a vaccination are minimal compared with the risk of contracting, say, tetanus.
Here you can listen to three doctors, including one with an autistic child, discussing issues related to vaccine safety.
Here's a transcript of some experts discussing vaccine safety issues.
This is a whole clearinghouse of information about vaccine safety.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has put together video clips of parents asking doctors questions about vaccines.
Stupid people do not deserve health care.
Then you should resign you own right to health care because that was the most idiotic statement I have heard all day....
a doctor should never refuse treatment as they have an ethical obligation to treat each and every patient they encounter. However, they do need to consult with the parents and in some circumstances report the parent to CPS when the lack of vaccinations begins to endanger the child.
I think the doctor should still help them because they might not have insurance and/or not have enough money to pay for the vaccines.
Ya I think doctors have opinion in what they do but think about this... if the patient didn't want ot vacionate then why are they parents? I mean keeping kids healthy is the most important thing in a parents life if not the social workers.
If a physician ends the relationship, there will no further ability to influence subsequent healthcare, or to influence a change of opinion. Trust is the one way to develop influence.
who cares if you dont vaccinate and you eat right you wont need a doctor.
If you don't vaccinate and eat right, and somebody sneezes on you, you'll still get sick.
I'm pretty sure that is the MOST ignorant thing I have EVER heard in my life.
Uh...no, it's not.
Proper nutrition helps keep your immune system functioning properly, but microbes have evolved to evade our immune systems. Infectious diseases are just that: infectious. Many of them are transmitted through airborne droplets, such as those produced by a sneeze. And if you're not vaccinated against, say, pertussis, and you're exposed to a significant degree, you're likely to contract the disease, no matter how excellent your diet.
YOU'RE NUTZ!! ONLY PARENTS KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM OTHERWISE. MY DOCTOR ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME! AND JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY CHILDREN VACCINATED, DOES NOT MEAN HIS STANDARD OF CARE DROPS TO SUB STANDARD!!
GET REAL!!!!!
Parent make the decisions for their children. They don't always make the right decisions.
I think it should be the other way around, the family should end there relationship with any doctor who insist that they should Vaccinate their children. I certainly would avoid anyone if it is possible who refuses to recognize my right to make my own decision.
Minnesota Public Radio featured a conversation on this issue during last Saturday's (11/12) "Weekend America" program.
MPR is also hosting a discussion board, and you can read what their listeners had to say.
I think it's crazy, in a country where vaccination is easy and inexpensive, that some kids go unimmunized. In other countries, vaccination workers walk for days and parents wait in long lines to get their kids vaccinated. And they're working under tough conditions, with no refrigeration, etc. But I guess they actually SEE the diseases that the vaccines prevent, and we've come a long way from there...
Some children CAN'T be vaccinated, and they depend on "herd immunity"--the fact that OTHER people are immunized--to keep them safe.
Don't like the vaccination schedule? Fine. Work out with your kid's doctor a schedule that you're comfortable with. But don't not vaccinate.
And I think doctors absolutely should be able to drop families that act against medical advice and endanger other children in the waiting room and greater community.
I am partially deaf from childhood mumps, a friend is deaf from measles, my father lost a friend in the 1950s from polio and my Nanna lost a sister around 1918 from what many people nowthink of as a "harmless" childhood disease. Doctors should not cut people off if they don't vaccinate - at least they can keep encouraging them if they are still seeing these patients.
Doctors should respect their relatonship with their clirnt and their opinion
I do not think the doctor should be able to drop a patient ONLY this reason - unless there is a danger to the doctor.
I think any doctor who would drop a patient on this alone is an idiot and should be sued for malpractice
Sued for malpractice? On what grounds?
So...you're saying that patients have no obligation to follow medical advice, but that doctors have an obligation to treat those patients, even if they don't have an acute problem, in spite of that? Seems a little lopsided to me...
Of course patients have rights. If it's your body, you should be able to decide what happens to it and how it's cared for. But don't doctors have rights, too?
doctors have the right to follow the oath that they took and treat their patients...Are you saying that doctors have dictatorship over thier patients lives....We as patients have right to agree or disagree with our doctors advice...Many doctors do make mistakes....I think, however that the patient would be to blame if he kept giving a doctor that he did not agree with, the right to serve him...Also regarding the vaccine controversy, I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that vaccines save lives, but are rather questioning the harmful ingredients that vaccines contain.....
Liza, that's not what the poll question is asking.
"Should doctors end their relationships with families who refuse to vaccinate their children?" and "Should doctors HAVE THE RIGHT to end their relationships with families who refuse to vaccinate their children?" are two very different questions.
Pick one question and stick to it.
Liza was not responding to the question; she was responding to someone's answer.
It depends. Sometimes, keeping a heathly child without a problematic record away form potentially harmful vaccines is acceptable, since the vaccines can be harmful. However, a young child who is the prime target for all sorts of nasty bugs probably should be vaccinated, because it is the sickly child who needs this vaccine the most.
A person should not be compelled to take any treatment they do not wish to recieve. That is an inelienable right, to with ones own body as one wishes. For a doctor, who has taken an oath to do his best to care for any human being under any circumstance, to refuse care to a patient because of their exercise of free will is a gross injustice.
No, people should not be forced to take any treatment that they don't want to, because people should be allowed to decide how they want to be treated and not be forced to strictly follow the doctor's opinion. I believe that it would be discrimanatory to end relationships with patients who deny treatment.
Your information on vaccines is scued. Research show that all serious diseases were well into decline before the vaccine for each disease was introduced. Europe, which doesn't vaccinate, also experienced the same decline. Vaccines side effects, such as SIDS, have equaled the mortality rate for most diseases prior to the vaccines being intoduced. About 30 per 100,000!
Research does NOT, in fact, show that "all serious diseases were well into decline before the vaccine for each disease was introduced." It's true that better sanitation, nutrition, and antibiotics, combined with lower birth rates and less crowded living conditions, have reduced the transmission of infectious disease. But the real, permanent declines in infectious diseases like pertussis or measles came AFTER the vaccines were introduced. Want to see the graph/numbers for yourself, using measles as a case study?
Further, Europe DOES vaccinate. In fact, Great Britain cut back the use of the pertussis vaccine in 1974 due to fears spread by folks like Vera Scheibner (see below). By 1978, the country had experienced an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, there is no connection between SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and vaccines.
Many, many studies have bene done to evaluate the possibility that vaccination might increase the risk of SIDS. Many of these involved both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. And not a single study found an increased risk of SIDS in vaccinated children. In fact, fully immunized children had a LOWER risk for SIDS!
Most of the websites that quote your information are citing a single researcher, Dr. Vera Scheibner, whose work in this area does not seem to have been formally peer reviewed, and is flat-out contradicted by all the reputable sources of pediatric vaccine information I could find. By the way, she's not a medical doctor, but holds a PhD in micropaleontology. (I also found the writings of Harris L. Coulter, who doesn't have a medical degree and has never had any of his "research" peer reviewed.) Many of these "misinformational" sites prey on parents' fears and don't stand up to critical scrutiny. (Here's a site debunking Scheibner's "research.")
There ARE side effects to vaccines: fever, malaise, soreness, and irritation. Much less commonly, children can experience severe reactions, such as allergic shock or neurologic disorders. But the benefits of vaccinating FAR outweigh the risks, which are so small that they're hard to evaluate statistically. Vaccines certainly don't cause 30 deaths per 100,000 children vaccinated. To say so is just plain wrong.
Want to know more? Here's the Center for Disease Control's sudden infant death syndrome and vaccination question and answer page.
Here's a Q&A sheet about vaccination myths.
Here are some tips on evaluating immunization information on the Internet. And here's a list of organizations that stand behind childhood vaccination.