SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
About a Third of Medical Vaccine Exemptions in San Diego Came From one Doctor:
She wrote 141 exemptions since 2015. The second highest number was 26.
A single San Diego doctor wrote nearly a third of the area’s medical vaccination exemptions since 2015, according to an investigation by the local nonprofit news organization Voice of San Diego.
[...]Medical vaccination exemptions are intended for the relatively few people who have medical conditions that prevent them from receiving vaccines safely. That includes people who are on long-term immunosuppressive therapy or those who are immunocompromised, such as those with HIV or those who have had severe, life-threatening allergic reactions (e.g. anaphylaxis) to previous immunizations. Such patients typically receive medical exemptions incidentally during their medical care. But some doctors are providing evaluations specifically to determine if a patient qualifies for an exemption and granting exemptions using criteria not based on medical evidence. Some doctors are even charging fees for these questionable exemption evaluations—including the doctor in San Diego, Tara Zandvliet.
[...]Zandvliet charges $180 for the evaluation, and her practice does not accept insurance.
Since 2015, Zandvliet has issued 141 of the 486 total medical exemptions granted in the San Diego Unified School District. After Zandvliet, the second highest number of medical exemptions granted by a single doctor was 26. The Voice of San Diego noted that Zandvliet’s practice is listed on several websites as being friendly to anti-vaccine parents.
I would not trust such a doctor to have only my best interests at heart.
If my paying a fee can persuade the doctor to write my desired exemption, then it stands to reason that an incentive from, say, a "big pharma" representative could induce the doctor to prescribe medications for me that are either questionably warranted or for which there are better or less expensive alternatives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Monday March 25 2019, @03:33PM (5 children)
I would be all for that, but unfortunately in the case of vaccinations those who refuse out of ignorance endanger those who are unable to be vaccinated (babies, immunocompromised, etc).
You know, I would also be fine with someone refusing to vaccinate, just as long as they are quarantined from the rest of society.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday March 25 2019, @06:16PM (4 children)
There is some irony in that it seems the people who hate Big Corporate America are also the ones who want to mandate the administration of BCA products. So do they hate the companies or are they gonna shill for them? IDK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:15PM
To your first point, just like any right, we have to balance the rights of the person against those around them. In this balance we have the individual's right to not get shots out of personal choice (we don't force people to get vaccines that we know would be harmed) against the surrounding population (including the patient in question) from getting preventable, dangerous diseases from indirect contact plus a compensation system in case you are one of the people who does get injured by the vaccine.
In addition, most vaccinations are given to minors, who don't have the ability to make certain decisions for themselves, so someone else has to make the decision for them regardless and I would prefer if it was someone who actually had the children's best interests in mind.
If there were some sort of quarantine zone that the unvaccinated people couldn't leave to endanger others (especially given the fact that they tend to participate in other high-risk behaviors), then sure the balance is obviously different, but that isn't the world we are in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:20PM
Forgot to include this in my first point. As to the "irony" you see in that, maybe it is because the world isn't black and white. Both sides have different things about "BCA" that they hate. Yeah, there are plenty of things I don't like about the big pharmaceutical companies, but them making low-margin, well-tested, generic vaccines is not one of them.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday March 25 2019, @09:19PM (1 child)
For such moral dilemmas I remember my Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."
Or to paraphrase: "The needs of the herd outweigh the wants of the one."
If one wants to be part of modern society (the herd) then they need to adhere to those society's rules. You may have the right to refuse, but the herd has the right to refuse you too.
Even without the multitude of studies done that don't find a link from vaccines to autism (which is where this is coming from), the benefits of vaccines are far greater than the risk of harm.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday March 26 2019, @05:56PM
Was it Star Trek III or IV where the needs of the many were thrown out for Spock?
The best interest of the person or child is most important and there is no way that a legislature will be able to figure that out. I think leaving it to the individual is the only way to go, try and educate them but it should ultimately be them who understands or freaks out enough to realize that a shot will hurt way less than the mumps. A good outbreak in the anti-vaxxers should make for some good data.