Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 04 2015, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:17PM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:17PM (#153526) Journal

    The poster appears to believe that Doctors have a right to force treatments? They 'acquiesce' to their patients because of their wussy doctoring style, when they should be laying down the law, is that it?

    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.

    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

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 05 2015, @11:10PM (#153673)

    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

      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday March 06 2015, @01:36PM (#153826) Journal

      a uniformed law enforcement officer has the ultimate authority to force a hollow-point bullet into your body

      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

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday March 06 2015, @04:02PM (#153863)

        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

          by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday March 06 2015, @09:46PM (#153965) Journal

          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

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday March 07 2015, @03:21AM (#154037)

            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

              by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:09PM (#154103) Journal

              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

              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] :

              It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

              In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

              No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.

              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.