SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the and-the-oscar-for-vaccine-education-goes-to... dept.
Catherine Saint Louis reports at the NYT that according to a survey of 534 primary care physicians, a wide majority of pediatricians and family physicians acquiesce to parents who wish to delay vaccinating their children, even though the doctors feel these decisions put children at risk for measles, whooping cough and other ailments. One-third of doctors said they acquiesced “often” or “always”; another third gave in only “sometimes.” According to Dr. Paul A. Offit, such deference is in keeping with today’s doctoring style, which values patients as partners. “At some level, you’re ceding your expertise, and you want the patient to participate and make the decision,” says Offit, a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases. “It is sad that we are willing to let children walk out of our offices vulnerable to potentially fatal infections. There’s a fatigue here, and there’s a kind of learned helplessness.”
Part of the problem is the lack of a proven strategy to guide physicians in counselling parents. “Unfortunately, we don’t have a solid evidence base in terms of how to communicate to patients about vaccines,” says Saad Omer adding that although he does not sanction the use of alternative vaccine schedules, he understands why primary care physicians keep treating these patients — just as doctors do not kick smokers out of their practices when they fail to quit. Dr. Allison Kempe, the study’s lead author and a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Colorado, thinks the time has come to acknowledge that the idea that “vaccine education can be handled in a brief wellness visit is untenable” and says that we may need pro-vaccine parents and perhaps even celebrities to star in marketing campaigns to help “reinforce vaccination as a social norm.” "Whether the topic is autism or presidential politics," says Frank Bruni, "celebrity trumps authority and obviates erudition."
(Score: 1, Disagree) by NewMexicoArt on Wednesday March 04 2015, @11:32PM
http://www.sott.net/article/293270-A-doctor-shares-his-view-on-immunity-and-vaccines [sott.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:56PM
Where's my '-1, anecdotal bullshit' mod when I need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:27PM
'm looking for the -1 idiot selling his own snake-oil.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:05PM
If you read even some of that (I could not stomach to more then skim it) you will notice that it does not cite anything, even anecdotes, after 1980. Yet the article was written in 2015.
Why exactly is it missing 35 years of information, data, anecdotes, anything?
My guess is because the author cannot find anything to reference that supports his case from the past 35 years.
Just as I would give no weight to a 35 year old book on state of the art space tech, I refuse to give this any weight whatsoever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @11:51PM
The problem with the current vaccination schedule is that kids are getting multiple shots at time and each shot contains vaccination against multiple diseases. It's just a lot for a body to handle. As far as I know, this is pretty much the main concern for folks opting for a "modified schedule" rather than a no-vax routine. In fact, a few pediatricians I've spoken too agree whole hardheartedly with a modified schedule. The thinking goes, if there is a reaction, it's not a guess what caused it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM
This pretty much. Its what we opted for when the children were small. And horror stories of sudden fevers and autistic children resulting etc were the anecdotes being passed around. One plausible prevailing theory was that the vaccination wasn't the direct cause, but brain-damaging high fevers in the reactions were -- so we were advised to proceed with caution...
Do one vaccine at a time so there was no guesswork as to any causes of any reactions. And monitor the child extra carefully after each, including mid-night checks for temperature; and treat any fever immediately and aggressively.
Maybe it was hokum... but it seemed to make sense not to hit an infant with a whole cocktail at once, and then potentially let her blaze away with fever all night before we even noticed anything was wrong...
Long and short, we vaccinated, we think it was the right thing to do, but we feel justified (right or wrong) that a more gradual schedule was safer and smarter.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:03AM
The most reasonable excuse for this I've seen is exactly this. "One variable at a time" to provide controls. Here's the problem: a study with a sample size of one by definition doesn't have a control. If you treat it this way, it's a recipe for anecdotal crap because you become hyper-vigilant at that time and the population is large. In reality neither actual evidence nor knowledge of the actual science of vaccinations or the immune system support this position. Like quantum mechanics, this is one place where intuition will lead you wrong.
Stating multiple shots is "too much" for the immune system to handle is actually a tremendously bold statement. I have to call [citation needed] - and there isn't any actual evidence to support that position. Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
Here is what really happens. Kids come into this world without passive or active immunity, get by with Mom's antibodies for a while, and then it's literally kill or be killed. All of the bugs on the planet are trying to get a piece of your child, and the kid's immune system is fighting back as hard as it can. However, it's new at the job. The good news is that by surviving this long, our species is really quite good at hunkering down and winning the war. The bad news is that we get sick a lot when we're young, building up our immunity for later. The really bad news is that there are a number of opponents that will regularly knock us right off or cripple us for life unless we have help.
In this massive conflict vaccines are essentially gifts. They are the trump cards, the aces in the hole, the intel to stop a crucial terror plot before it takes out the capital. They are the way to keep your child safe, stonewalling the very worst bad guys out there - so they can concentrate on fighting the minor fights instead of potentially losing the entire war against a terrible opponent. A loss we could have trivially prevented.
This right here is reality. This is not an opinion piece. It isn't up for debate. I'm being nice and engaging you; it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones. But wouldn't you want to get that precious intel to command as soon as possible? I will concede that later vaccination is better than no vaccination, however, how would you feel the same if your child died to whooping cough because you delayed? Because that is happening, too, but you won't see coverage of it (people don't seek coverage after such events for obvious reasons).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:37AM
Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
If it "doesn't even register" there wouldn't be that much point of vaccination would there?
Not everyone reacts badly, but a significant percentage do get fevers, so those vaccinations are definitely "registering" far more than your supposed millions/billions of threats which don't cause fevers etc.
When you vaccine millions or billions there are bound to be adverse reactions, maybe even fatal. Overall it's the "greater good" and arguably better than not mass vaccinating.
Just look at those people who have severe or even fatal allergic reactions to stuff that most of us have no problems with. Some of these stuff have been tested as safe for consumption by the FDA etc. You do a test with 1000 candidates and if it's 100% safe for 999 of them, that's good enough for a drug/treatment that's only used if someone is sick. But when billions are forced to take something, even if that something is extremely safe, don't be surprised if a few still get crippled or killed by it.
In my experience most people especially mothers aren't very rational when it comes to children (which is probably why this works: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/783904-the-state-must-declare-the-child-to-be-the-most [goodreads.com] ). So you have to lie to them to tell them its perfectly safe even though there is no such thing as perfectly safe.
So if it makes such people feel better, letting them pick a more relaxed schedule is better than not vaccinating at all. And I don't think it is such a huge problem as long as their children still complete their vaccinations in a timely manner, and especially before they hit preschool or similar and dramatically increase their exposure.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:51PM
Indeed. I'm by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I routinely refuse the flu vaccine because of how I react to it. Once or twice I can dismiss as anecdotal, but I worked for a hospital for years where flu vaccines were mandatory, and I'd invariably spend the following couple of days feeling miserable. In some cases, it was every bit as bad as actually catching the flu, so it seemed fairly pointless.
That said, I did recently make the decision that I'd go ahead and give it a try next year since it's been probably 15 years since I've last tried it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:28PM
I haven't had the flu vaccine in years because most sources seem to say that it doesn't really work because the strain that ends up going around isn't the strain that was in the vaccine for that year. Plus I'm healthy and rarely get sick.
However, I did get the flu vaccine several times in my late teens, and I remember one time I got it and promptly got horribly sick, with a fever. I lied down, and then about 3-4 hours later, I felt fine. I guess my body thought it had caught the flu and reacted accordingly, until it realized the virus was dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:50PM
Maybe try the live-attenuated vaccine FluMist instead. Maybe the typical inactivated egg-origin vaccine is the problem.
If you interact with any elderly family or friends, then maybe you should weigh dealing with a bad reaction with the risk of infecting them.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:04PM
Hence my statement of deciding to try it again next year. I decided to take an altruistic approach instead of a self-defense approach. We'll see how it turns out.
(Score: 1) by vux984 on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:21PM
Here is what really happens. Kids come into this world without passive or active immunity, get by with Mom's antibodies for a while, and then it's literally kill or be killed. All of the bugs on the planet are trying to get a piece of your child, and the kid's immune system is fighting back as hard as it can. However, it's new at the job. The good news is that by surviving this long, our species is really quite good at hunkering down and winning the war. The bad news is that we get sick a lot when we're young, building up our immunity for later. The really bad news is that there are a number of opponents that will regularly knock us right off or cripple us for life unless we have help.
You have a knack for narrative, I'll give you that. :)
Stating multiple shots is "too much" for the immune system to handle is actually a tremendously bold statement. I have to call [citation needed] - and there isn't any actual evidence to support that position.
I can't cite a study that hasn't been done; for which there are no results for OR against. However, I can observe that it is a well known phenomena that being sick with 2 different things is worse than being sick with 1 thing at a time. That having an allergic reaction while fighting a flu is worse than doing them separately. That the elderly often die of lesser diseases that aren't generally fatal due to being weakened by something else they were fighting.
Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
None of those other threats are so adept at killing us that they even have names. None of those other threats are causing a fever. Yet the vaccine... a defanged or even dead facsimile of the real threat that gets a reaction. Its RIDICULOUS to suggest that the vaccine doesn't even register when "A baby fever after vaccination shots or immunization is a natural reaction." is right in the child vaccination pamphlet.
What else does the pamphlet say?
Symptoms after immunization shots
So the child that was just fine fighting a billion other bugs now feels like crap (fussy/irritble/uneasy); and develops a fever ... you think that's just another day in the trenches? I see it as a day of particularly heaving fighting; higher than usual casualties; maybe even gave a bit of ground to regroup and fortify a rear position.
And what of the "rare cases"? Sounds like a major battle was lost that day. You certainly can't credibly claim vaccine's don't even register.
So if one vaccine is major incident for the body; its pretty reasonable to suggest that 5 of them at once might be worse; and pretty reasonable to suggest "lets do them one at a time" just in case.
I'm being nice and engaging you; it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones.
Go ahead and 'engage'. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, not even close. But I'm not going to pretend that vaccinations don't cause reactions either. Its right in the pamphlet.
I will concede that later vaccination is better than no vaccination, however, how would you feel the same if your child died to whooping cough because you delayed?
Because delaying it 5-10 days (or moving it forward 5-10 days) that's going to be what got my child killed? Weaksauce. How would you even determine that was the direct cause?
I mean, what if I didn't mess with the schedule at all, but my family Dr. was on vacation so her 1 year shots were delayed 3 weeks as we scheduled it for when the Dr. was back? And she dies of something that would have in the vaccination. Are you really suggesting that if only I'd gone to a vaccination clinic on the day of birthday that she'd have survived? I should feel guilt for having killed my child? Really?
What I undertook was actually more effort for all involved; since I had to make a series of trips to the Dr. around each vaccination mark.
What do you tell people who took their kids in for shots, took them home, then rush them to the hospital late that night because they are feverish and breathing irregularly? And when they go home a few days later; the child that was walking, and imitating sounds and would call out mama and dada to their parents, calls the dog, cat, and neighbor "bubbup" ... that child no longer walks, no longer makes eye contact, and no longer imitates or talks. I *know* those parents. Call it an anecdote, because that's what it is. But its still true.
I am NOT anti-vaxxer; I vaccinated knowing and agreeing with the science that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks both for my child, and for society. But don't pretend there aren't risks. No matter how good the odds are, somebody always loses. What do you tell them?
"At least she didn't die of the measles." ? or "Well, its for the good of the herd." ? Doesn't really cut it, does it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:56PM
The millions/billions of things the baby is exposed to are called antigens and the immune system can deal with all of them. Vaccines are supposed to provoke an immune response to particular antigens, so it is ready if it encounters the real pathogen. An immune response can induce a fever, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a vaccine does not induce a strong enough response, then the patient could be at an increased risk when they encounter the real pathogen (the RSV vaccine of the 60s had this problem).
(Score: 5, Informative) by compro01 on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:37AM
And that "concern" is as much bullshit as the rest of the anti-vaxxers' nonsense [aappublications.org]. Infants are bombarded with a vast array of pathogens before they're even finished being born. Vaccines are a drop in the ocean compared to everyday exposure.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:24AM
The vast array of pathogens aren't typically injected into infants.
How did we come to the current scheduling model anyway?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:31PM
Science and Medicine. All done by really smart people. Stop being the idiot that thinks they are smarter then that person who *actually* is smarter than you.
(Score: 1) by stormreaver on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:55PM
How did we come to the current scheduling model anyway?
That part is simple: the pharmaceutical industry created new cocktails for which it needed new profits. Nothing else mattered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:14PM
The pharmaceutical company gets pennies for each dose of vaccine. You can make that claim with many other drugs, particularly lifestyle drugs, but vaccines are not a profit maker for them. They might even be considered a loss leader, as in they help keep you alive now, so you can buy their lifestyle meds later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:52AM
Pakistan Arresting Anti-Vaxxers To Curb Polio Crisis [carbonated.tv]
This isn't a personal freedom thing; it's a public health matter.
Get with the program or find your own desert island to live on.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:34PM
I'm waiting for the back lash to all the Anti-Vaxxers in this country when we have our first polio outbreak since the 50's. You think the measles crap from Disney was news? Wait until you have kids that loose the ability to *breath*.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:10PM
The problem with the current vaccination schedule is that kids are getting multiple shots at time and each shot contains vaccination against multiple diseases. It's just a lot for a body to handle.
That's a scientific claim, not a matter of opinion. Citation needed.
Not the first time [slashdot.org] I've encountered this nonsense.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by KilroySmith on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:31AM
Frankly, whether you vaccinate a child at 3 years, or at 5 years, whether you give 3 vaccinations in a visit, or give 1 vaccination in each of 3 visits, probably has zero impact on the occurrence of disease in a well-vaccinated population where the likelihood of catching an illness is already remarkably low for an unvaccinated person. Let the parents who believe in the faith-based pseudo-science of anti-vax delay - I don't care.
But, they don't get to go to school with my kids until they're vaccinated.
/frank
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:59AM
"But, they don't get to go to school with my kids until they're vaccinated."
Take your kids and move to some hellhole where human rights are not respected then. Mexico is close and you will love their vaccination laws.
On the other hand, if you prefer to enjoy the benefits of living in a free country, there is a price to pay for that - respecting the freedoms of others.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:03AM
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.", Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
When your children become a clear and present, and easily resolved, danger to my children, we have a conflict. When all of civilized society except for a small cadre of either ignorant or bellicose people (see what I did there?) pose a danger to the rest of us (and there?), civilized society has the right to ostracize that cadre. I will not tell you that you must vaccinate your children; I will tell you that not doing so is foolish and ignorant, is a danger to them and others, and that you are wrong for not doing so. I will agitate to keep that hazard out of the public schools used by my children and the others of civilized society.
You are welcome to disagree with me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:03AM
For your context there's no significant danger to your kids assuming your own kids are vaccinated before they go to school.
The danger is if your children aren't old enough to be vaccinated AND are exposed to the disease. It's not really analogous to fist swinging, and closer to drinking alcohol and drunk driving.
Assuming you vaccinate your kids as per schedule, I'd say your children have a higher chance of being killed/crippled by a drunk person than by disease spread by an antivaxxer. And yet alcohol consumption is still legal. Same for other legal but potentially dangerous stuff.
So unless you show me evidence/proof that the risk to children of vaxxers is higher from antivaxxers than from other idiots allowed to do legal stuff I'd say antivaxxers should be allowed the freedom to be idiots just as other idiots are.
Otherwise you're being just as irrational over the safety of children as the antivaxxers are.
As far as I'm concerned there are already 7 billion people on this planet. So a small percentage of children dying isn't a huge problem, especially if they are mostly from the antivaxxer groups.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:10PM
So unless you show me evidence/proof that the risk to children of vaxxers is higher from antivaxxers than from other idiots allowed to do legal stuff I'd say antivaxxers should be allowed the freedom to be idiots just as other idiots are.
An excellent example of both the Shifting The Burden of Proof and False Equivalence fallacies. Well done!
Two logical fallacies in one sentence. What do you do for an encore?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @12:14AM
For your context there's no significant danger to your kids assuming your own kids are vaccinated before they go to school.
Some people have genuine medical issues that prevent them from being vaccinated, and for others sometimes the vaccine just doesn't take, this is why herd immunity is important, and anti-vaxxers contribute to weakening or even breaking of herd immunity.
As far as I'm concerned there are already 7 billion people on this planet. So a small percentage of children dying isn't a huge problem, especially if they are mostly from the antivaxxer groups.
Personally I rather that children didn't suffer because of their parents stupidity.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:50PM
"When your children become a clear and present, and easily resolved, danger to my children, we have a conflict."
But these children are not a 'clear and present danger' - they are healthy children and your only objection is that they have not been vaccinated against some rare diseases that you are irrationally afraid of.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:26PM
It is not an irrational fear, or has the measles outbreak totally slipped past your attention.
Your kid can get sick with measles and be spreading the disease to others before anyone has any idea that he is sick. That is a fact.
I dont really care of your kid gets vaccinated, if he/she gets sick and die it is completely your fault. I do not feel you should be allowed to send these kids to public schools though. Especially during an outbreak!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @09:13PM
If you're afraid of the measles, you should be unable to move about on or near public streets for fear of being one of the 40,000 yearly fatalities.
Since I presume you do expose yourself willingly to the dangers of the public roads, your fear of rare diseases is indeed irrational.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday March 06 2015, @10:34PM
From the CDC: "During 2001–2012, the median annual number of measles cases reported in the United States was 60 (range: 37–220), including 26 imported cases (range: 18–80). The median annual number of outbreaks reported to CDC was four (range: 2–16)."
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm)
The only mention in that document of fatalities is negative, that is to say, it appears that between 2001 and 2012 the fatalities from measles were zero.
Again from the CDC: "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it."
(http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html)
So with our median 60 cases a year, and figuring one or two as 1.5 (probably too high) we get *9/10ths _of a percent_ chance* of a single fatality each year.
The USA population in 2012 was 314.1Million, which means your chances of infection would be approximately 1.91E^7:1 and the chances of dying from it approximately 1.72E^8:1.
Now compare this to driving. In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes (30,296 fatal crashes), killing 32,999 and injuring 2,239,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year.) The same math yields a chance of injury in a car crash at about 7.24E^3 and chance of death in a car crash about 1.05E^4, which is to say that your chance of death in a car wreck is an incredible FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than the chance of dying of measles.
Heart disease is actually the most likely cause of death in the US, at least another order of magnitude more likely than a car crash. You (and your kids) are FAR more likely to die from poisoning, or complications from surgery, accidental drowning, a deadly assault, or any number of other things that we do not normally worry very much about, than measles.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:32PM
How much of a delay are we talking about? If they're just spreading them out so each shot is 1 week apart, is that really going to hurt if it gives people a little peace of mind? Obviously, delaying by years is a bad idea, but is a few days or a week really going to make a difference, besides the extra time needed to schedule a quick appointment? (Plus, any decently set-up doctor's office should be able to just shuffle the delayers in quickly for their subsequent shots. It's not like it takes an hour to stick a needle in a kid's arm; they should be in and out within 5 minutes.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:52PM
spreading them out so each shot is 1 week apart
Well, it will have minimal negative impact on the herd immunity effectiveness of vaccinations.
Now, if there is a full monetary charge for a doctor's office visit for each of those, it seems like a way to make considerable profit with a minimal additional investment of time.
This schedule sounds like a marketing guy's dream.
It does, however, play into the irrational fears of the poorly educated (who probably believe that they are well educated).
Just how many decades/generations of data is necessary before a medical procedure is accepted as way more effective than whatever is in 2nd place?
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:57AM
No, the doctor works for the patient, not the other way around. A doctor who shoved needles into people without their consent would be a criminal, not a hero.
I never used to credit the allegations about a link between vaccinations and autism, but the string of articles on here about the subject have prompted me to reconsider that. At the least, there seems to be quite a noticeable correlation between pro-vaccination posting and stereotypical autistic missing of the point.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:57AM
As I read this, you were moderated troll. Yeh, in a way it is a troll, but you also brought up aspect of just how much someone ( doctor ) should impose something ( a shot ) on others.
I believe vaccinations are necessary in a civilized society to combat biological threats to society. But then, I hardly consider a doctor to be the enforcer.
I feel the doctor has the same problem I had when my management decided to "upgrade" to a new CAD system, laced with licensing permissions and DRM. I knew once we had our work done in that new system, the "rightsholders" could easily hold our own work hostage for our compliance with any subsequent demands they placed on us.
I fought it- tooth and nail - becoming unemployed in the process.
There wasn't nothing much I could do about it... well dressed sales reps hanging around the boss's office, taking him out to lunch all the time... trying to keep us out of the DRM shackles was tantamount to keeping moths from flying right into the fire.
I had already been burned once before with Circuit City "Divx" disks, and knew full good and well the risks of losing control of your resources.
Being I had been personally in the shoes of the doctor ( or, at least, an engineer ), trying my best, but to no avail to keep a perceived threat at bay, I saw your post as interesting.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:38PM
I too found the original post interesting. I will add that it might be better for the doctor to acquiesce to a delay in vaccination now, rather than risk the parent running off with the child to some quack-doctor who might push them into the anti-vax camp. My doctor reminds me about weight control every time I visit, should she refuse to treat me if I don't do everything she prescribes, or is it better for her to at least be monitoring my condition?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:44PM
She shouldn't refuse to treat you just because your weight is too high, but she should warn you about it and advise you to do something about it. However, unless you're actively arguing with her and telling her that obesity is healthy and all this medical science saying people should be height/weight proportional is a big conspiracy theory by the diet food industry, that's not a reason to refuse to treat you. It's like going to a mechanic and him telling you your engine needs new rings, and you refusing because it's not in your budget; he's advising you of the best way to care for the car, but financial realities prevent that, and it might make more sense for you to just drive it this way for a while and save up for a new car, as engine work is very expensive and the car may not be worth that much. It's the same with fatness: actually doing something about it is easier said than done, requires time and effort, and worse (unlike cars where things are much more simple and straightforward than human biology) some treatments might not even work for you.
However, if you're 400 pounds and you insist obesity is healthy, and are trying to reach 800 pounds by eating as much lard as you can stomach, I'd say that's a case where the doctor should just refuse to treat you because you obviously don't believe in their advice. Same goes for pediatricians; anti-vaxxers shouldn't even bother going to them, since they obviously don't value their expertise, and think they know better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:29PM
Your being fat is not contagious. Big Big difference.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:48PM
I feel the doctor has the same problem I had when my management decided to "upgrade" to a new CAD system, laced with licensing permissions and DRM. I knew once we had our work done in that new system, the "rightsholders" could easily hold our own work hostage for our compliance with any subsequent demands they placed on us.
I fought it- tooth and nail - becoming unemployed in the process.
There wasn't nothing much I could do about it... well dressed sales reps hanging around the boss's office, taking him out to lunch all the time... trying to keep us out of the DRM shackles was tantamount to keeping moths from flying right into the fire.
I had already been burned once before with Circuit City "Divx" disks, and knew full good and well the risks of losing control of your resources.
You lost your job because of DRM? Why would you do that? Why do you care so much? Not wanting to buy some DRM-laced POS for your home is one thing (and quite prudent I'll add), but making a big stink at your workplace over something like that, to the point where they can your ass because they're sick of hearing your bitching and moaning, is quite another. You're not there to protect your employer from bad decisions, you're there to collect a paycheck and do what they tell you. If they make a stupid decision, who cares? Register your opinion, make a case if you're asked (you're hopefully valued for your expertise after all), but at the end, it's management's decision. If they make a stupid decision and it burns them a year later, too bad; that's their problem, not yours. It's not your company; you're just a paid lackey.
I know this doesn't sound idealistic, but idealism doesn't keep you employed and earning a good paycheck. Imagine if every employee became insubordinate every time management did something they thought was a bad idea; the company would never get anything done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @12:20AM
If management are making boneheaded decisions like that, then it may not have been a good place to carry on working at anyway. If he was easily able to find another job, it may not have been a bad thing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:33AM
Patients have a right to informed consent [wikipedia.org] with the ability to ask questions and even disagree with doctors and treatment plans. In the old days, doctors' judgements were almost universally accepted, leading [wikipedia.org] to all sorts of quackery. [wikipedia.org]
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:08AM
The keyword being informed consent.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:17PM
You hit the nail on the head. Insofar as the United States of America is concerned, each human is the exclusive owner of his/her own body. No one, not a doctor, not a school administrator, not a government agent, not a uniformed law enforcement officer, no one has authority to force anything into or out of your body. Freedom of association does cut both ways, and if one person finds another to be offensive (but not criminal), the only proper remedy available is to eschew contact. Nations where these facts are not recognized by those with authority or violence at their disposal are ultimately still slave states, a sad testament to the claim that evil does exist in this world.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @11:10PM
No one, not a doctor, not a school administrator, not a government agent, not a uniformed law enforcement officer, no one has authority to force anything into or out of your body.
This is completely incorrect. In the USA, a uniformed law enforcement officer has the ultimate authority to force a hollow-point bullet into your body any time he feels like it, and he will not be prosecuted for it even if it was completely unjustified.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday March 06 2015, @01:36PM
You're confusing authority from law with authority from violence (or merely confusing de facto with de jure. The violence-based authority a cop uses to murder someone is exactly equal to that of a lone mugger, and is justifiably countered with a violent response in self-defense. Using even lethal force against a criminal cop has been recognized as lawful by US courts (see Bad Elk vs United States [cornell.edu]).
Justified violence used in self-defense against cops is typically not going to end well for the justified defender. That fact does not change the legal situation that all laws repugnant to the US Constitution are void, without requiring any court, judge, or any official finding or ruling of any sort. Cops that kill others using unlawful lethal force are murderers regardless of what "laws" they point to as a claim that the murder was lawful; the situation is identical to the lowly soldiers who were executed after the Nuremberg Trials (specifically the Auschwitz trial). Put concisely: illegal laws are not laws at all.
I've written two [soylentnews.org] journals [soylentnews.org] on this topic, if this subject continues to be of interest.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 06 2015, @04:02PM
You're confusing authority from law with authority from violence (or merely confusing de facto with de jure.
No, not at all.
The violence-based authority a cop uses to murder someone is exactly equal to that of a lone mugger, and is justifiably countered with a violent response in self-defense.
Wrong. If a mugger kills you, the cops will generally try to find him, and the justice system will probably imprison him for a long time. If a cop kills you, even if it's completely unjustified, the cop will keep his job (though with a paid "administrative leave" (vacation), and that's it. If you shoot at a mugger in self-defense, you'll probably go scot-free. If you shoot at a cop in self-defense, his buddies will make sure to kill you. You will never see a trial; they'll make sure of that.
Using even lethal force against a criminal cop has been recognized as lawful by US courts (see Bad Elk vs United States).
You're citing a case from 1900 on an Indian reservation? This is easily the wackiest citation I have ever seen on a message board like this. The police have changed a lot since then, and reservations are very different places than mainstream American society, with separate police forces and legal systems.
Justified violence used in self-defense against cops is typically not going to end well for the justified defender. That fact does not change the legal situation that all laws repugnant to the US Constitution are void,
Wrong. Laws are only void when a court declares them to be. Some guy on the street does not get to say what is and isn't Constitutional.
Cops that kill others using unlawful lethal force are murderers regardless of what "laws" they point to
Irrelevant. If the cops go scot-free, who cares what some laws in a book say? What's important is how the justice system actually operates in real life.
the situation is identical to the lowly soldiers who were executed after the Nuremberg Trials (specifically the Auschwitz trial). Put concisely: illegal laws are not laws at all.
No, the situation is nothing like that. The Auschwitz soldiers were acting legally, according to the laws of the country they were in. The Nuremberg court decided that some vague higher laws about "human rights" applied to them and superceded the Nazi government's laws. In short, the only reason these people were executed is because their side lost a big war, and the victors wanted to (rightfully) make an example of them and take a stand against wartime atrocities and genocide. If their side had won, their actions would have been seen as completely legal and they would have been scot-free. We are not in a declared war, and our cops are not operating concentration camps (though the black site in Chicago is starting to look like one...), they're oppressing other citizens of their own nation. The only way they'll be prosecuted is if we get invaded and conquered by some do-gooder foreigners who decide to make an example of them. That isn't likely to happen. Early 1940s Germany certainly didn't take any action against members of its government who did wrong things, and our government isn't either.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday March 06 2015, @09:46PM
While there are some finer practical points upon which we both agree, the overall viewpoint you express can only be true if government agents (elected or otherwise) in the United States of America claim ownership of the humans living within. Practically, this does seem to be the case. Legally, this absolutely cannot be the case, considering that the original source of authority for the USA and its laws is the consent of a single individual. Absent slavery, no one human has any authority over any other human. Such an idea is echoed in the Declaration of Independence, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and Frederic Bastiat's The Law. History highlights the fact that the US federal government was created by the delegated consent of a collection of lone individuals, expressed with a vote to elect delegates to attend a Constitutional Convention which ultimately created the legal foundation for the USA of today.
The authority of one armed mugger does not increase should the mugger have one accomplice, ten, or a thousand. The mere power that can be flexed by additional numbers does indeed increase, but that has no basis in establishing legitimacy absent a state of slavery. This same fact holds true whether the criminal in question is a mugger or a uniformed law enforcement officer who kills someone under the supposed authority of an illegal law.
Your attempted rejection of legal principles recognized (but NOT established) by US courts based on age is puzzling. Do you also reject legal principles of law established in 1787 or 1789? Here are some additional old court cases for you to ponder in regards to the matter of illegal law being no law at all, effectively leaving the question to be decided by "some guy on the street": "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed", Norton vs Shelby County, 1886; "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void", Marbury vs Madison, 1803.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 07 2015, @03:21AM
Practically, this does seem to be the case. Legally, this absolutely cannot be the case
See, the point I'm making is that laws on the books are really irrelevant; the only thing that matters is how the actual justice system (composed of cops, lawyers, judges) behaves in reality. If there's a law saying that cops are subject to prosecution for wrongly shooting people, yet they're never actually prosecuted when this happens, then there might as well not be a law.
"a law repugnant to the Constitution is void", Marbury vs Madison, 1803.
That sounds all well and good, but if the cops arrest you for an unconstitutional law, and then you're prosecuted under that unconstitutional law, and the judge sentences you and you spend 20 years in prison for it, what good has it done that it's (in your opinion) unconstitutional?
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:09PM
I agree with you here, in that the practical reality is what has actual impact on individuals rather than the underlying theoretical or philosophical concepts. What I hope to accomplish by pointing out the underlying concepts is increased awareness that justice is absolutely not the same as practical reality wrapped in the facade of legality. Frederic Bastiat eloquently wrote on this matter in The Law [bastiat.org] :
The hoped-for practical application of elevating justice above law includes changing the minds of increasing numbers of ordinary individuals to reflect that law - and therefore government agents' behavior based on law - is not the ultimate arbiter of justice; that certain things are not subject to a vote (e.g. slavery); that there is hope for a restoration of justice that does not rely completely on the increasingly-hopeless ballot box. To an extent, the hope is to increase the power of the "gang" of individuals who share this basic viewpoint with me. The key difference between "my" gang and that of stereotypical or uniformed gangs is that the power "my" gang flexes rests upon their inherent authority as free human beings and NOT solely upon how many armed thugs (enforcers, jailers, etc.) are available to shoot enemies.
Real-world results of this hoped-for practical application can be seen in the contrast between the siege at Waco [wikipedia.org] and the most recent crescendo in the land ownership conflict between the Bundy family and the US federal government [youtube.com]. From a "law is ultimate" perspective, the supporters of the Bundy family were armed criminals and should have been arrested/killed for their disobedience to something held forth as the law. If USians are free people not subject to slavery, then justice prevails over a non-law (US fedgov cannot own land other than in DC, for post roads, military installations, and for use with enumerated powers [tenthamendmentcenter.com]) and the Bundy's supporters were free people standing in defense against uniformed criminals who were confronted in the act of committing crimes.
There are more such practical examples scattered about in recent and current US history: Deacons for Defense and Justice [wikipedia.org]; the Battle of Athens [jpfo.org]; the resolution of the disappearing of Anthony Bosworth [patrickhenrysociety.com]; and the ongoing mass civil disobedience to new non-laws in Connecticut [theblaze.com], New York [bearingarms.com], Washington [imgfeatures.com], and elsewhere [firearmsfreedomact.com]. I hope that such examples seem encouraging, and that you will critically examine the support I present in favor of a viewpoint I believe is both true and helpful.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:37PM
Doctors are not enforcers, they're supposed to be consultants and expert service providers. They're a lot like mechanics for cars and aircraft.
However, the thing is, you're supposed to go to a doctor because they're the expert in whatever it is you need help with. Just like with mechanics, where you go in because the car is making a funny noise, and you want to get it fixed. You don't go to a mechanic and tell him how to do his job. You don't go to a mechanic, have him tell you the alternator is bad and needs to be replaced, and then tell him he's wrong, doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he needs to replace the starter instead. If you do think your mechanic is incompetent, you don't go there!
So why are people going to doctors if they don't believe anything the doctors are telling them? These people should simply stop going to doctors altogether, since they obviously think they know better.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:31PM
Even in my own limited experience I have had occasion to disagree with doctors whose skill and experience I continue to hold in high regard. There can be different priorities held by a doctor and the patient, and not necessarily in the way one would expect.
One trusted doctor repeatedly suggested a specific solution that was mechanically inferior to another (a fact the doctor agreed with during discussions), ultimately due to cost differences. Considering I was a paying customer and had determined that the higher priced and mechanically superior solution's cost was already acceptable to me, I repeatedly expressed my desire to take the route I preferred over the one recommended by the doctor. The doctor acquiesced to my desired preferences and made money by willingly performing skilled work, while I had a problem fixed in a manner which I continue to be satisfied with. I still seek the same doctor's advice and services.
Skilled troubleshooters such as doctors, mechanics, and computer techs often have access to more than one way to solve a given problem. On a maddingly-regular basis in the computer world, the best solution often conflicts with the customer's preferences, which requires finding a solution that both fixes the problem and accomodates the preferences of the customer. In like manner, taking a slower approach to vaccination schedules to reduce or eliminate guesswork in regards to bodily reactions seems absolutely sane and preferable to simultaneous injections to someone in a troubleshooting profession. The vitriolic responses in the vein of your "stop going to doctors" puzzle me since the only variable considered by the article is timetable and not a complete or partial elimination of recommended treatment.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:02PM
Even in my own limited experience I have had occasion to disagree with doctors whose skill and experience I continue to hold in high regard. There can be different priorities held by a doctor and the patient, and not necessarily in the way one would expect.
Yes, but with anti-vax, this isn't a question of different priorities, but rather complete disagreement about basic science.
Now, I will grant that the slower vaccine schedules, while more costly and time-consuming (though I do think a decent doctor's office should be able to get people in and out more quickly for subsequent shots if they would organize it properly), can be considered an OK compromise in the interest of avoiding bodily reactions, since after all, different people's bodies are different and react differently to things.
My "stop going to doctors" bit was in response to actual anti-vaxxers (I do not consider people who want a little bit of time between injections to be "anti-vaxxers"). These people aren't worried about bodily reactions to too many vaccines at once (in their view), anti-vaxxers actually don't believe vaccinations are necessary or should be done. The altered-schedule people simply disagree about about the schedule and worry about having a reaction from so many vaccines at once; the anti-vax people disagree with all the basic science about vaccines and their efficacy and herd immunity. To me, that's a big, big difference. If they completely disagree with medical science that dates back almost a century now, then why are they bothering going to doctors at all? (The altered-schedule people are only disagreeing with medical science that's maybe a decade old or so; they didn't give so many vaccines when I was a kid.) So, I can understand someone being skeptical about pumping their kid with so many vaccines at once, when it wasn't normal a few decades ago. But you have to be a complete moron to think that risking your kid catching polio, tetanus, etc. is a good idea. Any elderly person can tell you the horrors of those diseases.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:27PM
We agree, and the only caveat from me is that, in a nation of free humans, each individual nonetheless has the right to be a complete moron. Such humans own their bodies, and while free human children are a wonderfully snarled practical pickle, until there is at least an actual case of one individual harming another, there is no crime. (And what should most people care about that moron anway - they got vaccinated, right?) Our moronic politicians aren't helping matters, either, with criminal behavior like pushing mandatory HPV vaccines on kids, or making money off the health of soldiers with the completely ineffective against aerosolized anthrax vaccine. When liars lie about some vaccines, a not completely unexpected consequence is that the liars are distrusted even when presenting truth.
Known-good vaccines are like seatbelt laws: a good idea, stupid to disregard, but utterly void of principle (and for free people, legality) should a law tried to be made to mandate their use. I await fresh-underwear and brushed-teeth laws with bated breath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:31AM
Like other posters, I am tired of the topic and the inflexible views on both sides.
But, it is somewhat irresistible to take a shot at OP and his framing of the summary:
AVM: "Hi, Will you be my doctor?"
PVD: "Sure, but only if you strictly adhere to the vaccine schedules."
AVM: "Oh, gee, thanks, but no thanks."
Health care isn't mandatory, and it works better if people come in for their recommended visits. If they opt not to follow 100% of the advice delivered, does that mean they should be refused any service at all?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:33AM
Funny how those who insist on their rights to do what they want, are so quick to deny those rights to others.
If your family doctor doesn't want to treat people who won't vaccinate, who are you to deny them that right?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:24PM
Sure, doctors have a right to deny service, but, what's their motivation?
Do you think denying people medical care altogether will somehow strong-arm them into accepting your idea of medical care?
More likely they will go form homeopathy collectives, reinforce their own views of healthcare among themselves and build a political power base... that doesn't seem like a desirable outcome, from the perspective of mainstream doctors, at least.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by KilroySmith on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:04PM
I don't care what their motivation is. It's not my job to assess that for them.
You're welcome to try to convince them that such actions are detrimental to their cause long-term.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @11:29PM
Sure, doctors have a right to deny service, but, what's their motivation?
Easy: if you disagree with them on medical matters, that means you think you know more about medicine than they do. Why would they want to see patients who believe them to be incompetent?
If I were a mechanic and I told a customer their alternator was bad, and they told me I didn't know what I was talking about (calling me incompetent), I would tell them to find another mechanic.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 09 2015, @09:47PM
If you were a mechanic, you might also learn to listen to the owner of the machine you are working on - they have hundreds of hours experience with it, while you just get to see it for a few minutes before you are supposed to fix it. Sure, you may have seen hundreds of machines "just like it," and know what was wrong with them, but unless you hear something of the history of how it came to you, you might just be applying a fix for something that isn't broken in this particular case.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 09 2015, @10:50PM
So when the owner says that his car never needs oil changes, the mechanic should believe him?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 14 2015, @03:03AM
A vaccine isn't so much an oil change as it is a patina of aluminum oxide on a thin bare aluminum panel... it protects from further corrosion, it can form naturally on its own, and sometimes putting it on as a preventative measure does more harm than good.
Living things aren't as simple as vehicles, but if you are looking for bad car analogies, remember that Soylent is full of Slashdot refugees.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:12AM
You have a valid <i>medical</i> reason to not be vaccinated.
You get vaccinated.
We kick you out of the country.
(assess the value of their assets. write them a check. and put them on the plane. bye. you're out of here. which makes it someone elses problem...)
This whole 'oh nos the gubbmint forcin us to get the scary autisim causin vax' is ignorant bullshit.
In this case. This single case here. I agree the goverment SHOULD be forcing you to be vaccinated. Or get rid of you.
It's for the greater good which is way bigger than your pissy little individual uneducated 'myfeels' rights.
Do your part to help the society here in this country or get the fuck out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @09:53AM
How do people get from "alter vaccine schedules" to "not get vaccinated"?
A child that gets vaccinated two months later still gets vaccinated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:16AM
I see someone complaining that they lack CONTROL. In this case, the author fears disease. The complaint is that some doctors accept reasons/excuses why a child shouldn't be vaccinated, right here, right now, for multiple diseases. Rather than examine the REASONS and/or excuses given for delaying, the author simply complains about his/her lack of control. It's the ages old question of who is in control of an individual's life.
And, the author wants that control for himself. He fears disease, and he is willing to sacrifice all his fellow human's autonomy to help ensure that he doesn't get a disease.
Hey, people, my freedom does NOT end where your fears begin. You deal with your fears, I'll deal with my freedom. Now, run along and have a fretful life!
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:37PM
As I understand it, many parents want to spread out the vaccinations over more visits.
From my experience (and for the record, my wife is a Medical Assistant), each visit is billed to insurance separately, with the parents paying a co-pay for each one.
Since this increases revenue for the practice, is is any wonder why this practice is only mildly discouraged?
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @11:33PM
Actually, it's a wonder any insurance company actually allows this at all. Why would they want to pay more money than they have to?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:10PM
Amazing.
We mutilate genitals at birth to prevent the spread of HPV and other diseases, but we can't vaccinate against them.
Amazing.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @11:35PM
We mutilate genitals at birth to prevent the spread of HPV and other diseases, but we can't vaccinate against them.
I'm pretty sure there is absolutely zero evidence that genital mutilation actually helps with this (except maybe for some bullshit study done in Africa with completely flawed methodology).
The real reason we mutilate male genitals is to discourage boys from masturbating. Ask Dr. Kellogg.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:29PM
just as doctors do not kick smokers out of their practices when they fail to quit.
Really?, I'd imagine if a smoker wouldn't stop smoking in the waiting room, the doctor might just kick them out. Just like they might not want to have people in their waiting rooms purposely choosing to be a disease vector to the other patients.