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: 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.