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) 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.