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, 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.