U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-16-2012, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,976 posts, read 11,800,037 times
Reputation: 14677

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave5150 View Post
of course chicken pox is dangerous. Its a disease. But leaving the house is dangerous too. Flying in an airplane is dangerous to. But we cant all be agoraphobic can we?

Thats ridiculous right? ^ but people die in car crashes and airplanes crash but we have stopped doing that have we? Pointing out the dangers is absolutely necessary and people who dont vaccinate generally are well informed about the risks of either choice. If i didnt vaccinate and my child died (or was permanently disabled) i would never forgive myself. If I vaccinated and my child died (or was permanently disabled) I would never forgive myself. Being a parent and making the right choice isnt always an easy choice. Being a parent isnt easy and shouldnt be. But essentially telling a parent who has made a well thought out informed decision for their child you dont agree is acceptable, telling them they are going to kill their child and every child they come in contact with is unacceptable.
Well, we are not talking about those things though, we are talking about Chicken Pox, which thankfully is preventable.

 
Old 02-16-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,555,754 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave5150 View Post
of course chicken pox is dangerous. Its a disease. But leaving the house is dangerous too. Flying in an airplane is dangerous to. But we cant all be agoraphobic can we?

Thats ridiculous right? ^ but people die in car crashes and airplanes crash but we have stopped doing that have we? Pointing out the dangers is absolutely necessary and people who dont vaccinate generally are well informed about the risks of either choice. If i didnt vaccinate and my child died (or was permanently disabled) i would never forgive myself. If I vaccinated and my child died (or was permanently disabled) I would never forgive myself. Being a parent and making the right choice isnt always an easy choice. Being a parent isnt easy and shouldnt be. But essentially telling a parent who has made a well thought out informed decision for their child you dont agree is acceptable, telling them they are going to kill their child and every child they come in contact with is unacceptable.
I agree. I don't see the risks of exposure to newborns in a family practice by someone unvaccinated as a great risk,not enough risk to fire the patients. Seems extreme to me, not enough risk associated with it. It would be a rare event and how would you prove the baby even got it from a patient? They could have caught it at the store on the way home from the doctor, how would you even know? Of course the parents would try and put 2 and 2 together but that isn't proof, and of course they'd be upset but that doesn't mean they can blame it on the unvaccinated patient. They have no way of proving that. The stats are so low, even for cases of these diseases that I wouldn't worry about it myself, and don't. I never worried about my newborn getting those illnesses from unvaccinated kids. I worried more about RSV or the flu.
It seems the doctor is being a little illogical about the whole thing. I mean a patient would be more likely to kill a person on the way to the doctor in their car then give a newborn measles or mumps. Maybe he should just stick with the facts and the real risks of that ever happening. Many more non vaccinated kids go to the doctor every year and never give other patients any of these diseases and dying from it if it did happen would be extremely rare. I don't think relying on "what if's" or "maybes" justifies firing patients. The risk is minimal to say the least. I think it's overkill myself.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 02:58 PM
 
32,538 posts, read 29,356,382 times
Reputation: 32238
The doctor is being illogical?

How about the parents who believe junk science as their reason not to vaccinate their children?
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:01 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Hm, you really believe that no babies get sick in hospitals? No hospital employees are ever sick either? Completely illness free?
I guess we just differ in this area then. I think babies are always at risk, everywhere. Just a part of life.
Ah and we are jumping to conclusions?

Where did I ever make the above claim? You completely made that up.

What I said and continue to say, is that rational people take precautions around those who have inherently weaker immune systems to protect them from dangers that are easily mitigated.

It is stupid beyond belief to make the "going outside is dangerous" argument here because it ignores the fact that there is nothing anyone can do to control a plane falling out of the sky on someone, but there is something very real that can be done to minimize the risk of communicable, and deadly diseases like measles, mumps, diptheria, etc.

And if you cannot see the difference, that is YOUR problem.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:05 PM
 
Location: here
24,473 posts, read 28,761,114 times
Reputation: 31056
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Ah and we are jumping to conclusions?

Where did I ever make the above claim? You completely made that up.

What I said and continue to say, is that rational people take precautions around those who have inherently weaker immune systems to protect them from dangers that are easily mitigated.

It is stupid beyond belief to make the "going outside is dangerous" argument here because it ignores the fact that there is nothing anyone can do to control a plane falling out of the sky on someone, but there is something very real that can be done to minimize the risk of communicable, and deadly diseases like measles, mumps, diptheria, etc.

And if you cannot see the difference, that is YOUR problem.
The fact that there are other hazards in the world is no reason not to take precautions when you can.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:24 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Premise is the same:

28 cancer medications in dangerously short supply - CBS News

Well, that is what I'm referring to as missing the big picture. Say, chemo meds are in short supply, and you have a woman who use to smoke but is now a mom and doesn't who has cancer. You also have a child or parent with cancer who never smoked a day in their life. Who gets the medicine when their is only enough for one of them? These are the kinds of events that happen because people don't look at the big picture.
What are you even talking about?

The above scenario has nothing to do with a doctor choosing to protect all his patients from the choices of a few. It is simply the devastating effects of our society trusting our health to corporations.

Quote:
What if you have someone who drinks beer, a lot maybe, maybe not but ends up needing a liver. You have someone who hasn't, needs the liver. What do you do. Then there is the unfortunate trickle down. The kid that needs chemo but who's parents smoked in the home. Then the kids who's parents didn't make a bad decision to smoke in the home. Who gets the meds if they are running out?

These are all real life scenarios. The same premise is used. It's endless. How can you make one decision like that without the other?
Real life scenarios? Meaning you actually know of these exact cases? Or in reality did you just make them up?

Quote:
You are wrong if you think it doesn't all boil down to who the majority thinks deserves help. It does, and it can be scary. I won't participate. It's all or nothing for me. That is the big picture behind the choice to fire patients, or deny coverage, or help to those who have made bad decisions in their lives. Even if they've changed, it's always their with them.
You know who needs help? Immune compromised children who do not have the option of taking vaccines. They need to be protected. Their right to live needs to be protected over the right of parents to go to whatever doctor they want. It is no different than making a cafeteria table peanut free to protect one child with a life threatening allergy. Yes, all children have the right to eat peanut butter but they do not have the right to eat it at every single table in the cafeteria if it threatens the life of another kid.

Quote:
I just don't agree with the premise on which to give or not give people care. Even if I am not the smoker, drinker, or anti vacciner. Maybe you don't understand where I'm coming from but that's ok, as long as choice still stands and people like you who don't think of the big picture don't start making it fact. It's ok if some doctor wants to choose patients but if it becomes a law then that is a problem. Things progress. That is what age has taught me.
So ONLY parent who choose not to vaccinate get a choice? Not parents who want to go to a practice where they will not be exposed to unvaccinated children? Because that is what you are advocating. NO CHOICE for children who are inherently more vulnerable.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
2,311 posts, read 3,466,706 times
Reputation: 5304
I fully and completely agree!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Sounds good to me. We need to quit kowtowing to people who live their lives based on rumors or misinformation as if those are facts.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:32 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
I agree. I don't see the risks of exposure to newborns in a family practice by someone unvaccinated as a great risk,not enough risk to fire the patients. Seems extreme to me, not enough risk associated with it. It would be a rare event and how would you prove the baby even got it from a patient? They could have caught it at the store on the way home from the doctor, how would you even know? Of course the parents would try and put 2 and 2 together but that isn't proof, and of course they'd be upset but that doesn't mean they can blame it on the unvaccinated patient. They have no way of proving that. The stats are so low, even for cases of these diseases that I wouldn't worry about it myself, and don't. I never worried about my newborn getting those illnesses from unvaccinated kids. I worried more about RSV or the flu.
It seems the doctor is being a little illogical about the whole thing. I mean a patient would be more likely to kill a person on the way to the doctor in their car then give a newborn measles or mumps. Maybe he should just stick with the facts and the real risks of that ever happening. Many more non vaccinated kids go to the doctor every year and never give other patients any of these diseases and dying from it if it did happen would be extremely rare. I don't think relying on "what if's" or "maybes" justifies firing patients. The risk is minimal to say the least. I think it's overkill myself.
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Measels, mumps, diptheria are all diseases that are almost IMPOSSIBLE to contract at a store because almost everyone in the country is vaccinated against them. IF an immune compromised child gets one of the deadly childhood diseases it is LIKELY to be from someone NOT IMMUNIZED. And lets be really clear here. Measels is HIGHLY contagious, and a doctors waiting room with one kid with it and one kid not immunized against due to health issues is a perfect scenario for the non-immunized kid to get a disease that will frequently kill (25% or so of the time) them due to complications like giant cell pneumonia.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,228,450 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
I agree. I don't see the risks of exposure to newborns in a family practice by someone unvaccinated as a great risk,not enough risk to fire the patients. Seems extreme to me, not enough risk associated with it. It would be a rare event and how would you prove the baby even got it from a patient? They could have caught it at the store on the way home from the doctor, how would you even know? Of course the parents would try and put 2 and 2 together but that isn't proof, and of course they'd be upset but that doesn't mean they can blame it on the unvaccinated patient. They have no way of proving that. The stats are so low, even for cases of these diseases that I wouldn't worry about it myself, and don't. I never worried about my newborn getting those illnesses from unvaccinated kids. I worried more about RSV or the flu.
It seems the doctor is being a little illogical about the whole thing. I mean a patient would be more likely to kill a person on the way to the doctor in their car then give a newborn measles or mumps. Maybe he should just stick with the facts and the real risks of that ever happening. Many more non vaccinated kids go to the doctor every year and never give other patients any of these diseases and dying from it if it did happen would be extremely rare. I don't think relying on "what if's" or "maybes" justifies firing patients. The risk is minimal to say the least. I think it's overkill myself.
Forgive me for pointing this out, but the "it's endless" (your words from up thread)/big picture argument is predicated entirely on "what if's" and "maybes." I am confused as to why "what if's" and "maybes" support your position but not the doctor who chooses to fire a patient who won't vaccinate? Genuinely asking as it seems to be logically inconsistent to me.

I am not going to address the risk to the yet-to-be vaccinated or immune-compromised, as you and I have both made our differing positions on that very clear already. (ETA:And I see someone else already addressed it)

Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 02-16-2012 at 03:58 PM..
 
Old 02-16-2012, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,555,754 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
Forgive me for pointing this out, but the "it's endless" (your words from up thread)/big picture argument is predicated entirely on "what if's" and "maybes." I am confused as to why "what if's" and "maybes" support your position but not the doctor who chooses to fire a patient who won't vaccinate? Genuinely asking as it seems to be logically inconsistent to me.

I am not going to address the risk to the yet-to-be vaccinated or immune-compromised, as you and I have both made our differing positions on that very clear already. (ETA:And I see someone else already addressed it)
It's pretty much the argument used against anti-vaccine parents by pro vaccine parents. Not much different.

Like this statement from Suzy to me: "They may not be stupid, but they are misguided and truly ignorant about vaccines. They base the decision not to vaccinate on anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims of serious adverse effects of vaccines that just do not really exist."
"The same can be said for firing patients because of worry they would spread the disease. As a matter of fact there is plenty of proof that the vaccinated are more likely to spread outbreaks.
I will ask the same of you who boast on proof and not paranoia. The proof is that more people who are vaccinated spread these diseases and if truly worried about spreading it he would fire the ones who've been vaccinated, right? He is going by hear say, not proof because there are not more people in American spreading the diseases than those who have been vaccinated.
I find it odd that everyone condones his actions and bash anti vaccine parents for theirs when it's no different. The reasons are the same.


"Despite a high coverage rate with two doses of mumps-containing vaccine, a large mumps outbreak occurred, characterized by two-dose vaccine failure, particularly among midwestern college-age adults who probably received the second dose as schoolchildren. A more effective mumps vaccine or changes in vaccine policy may be needed to avert future outbreaks and achieve the elimination of mumps." New England Journal of Medicine.

"In 2002 an outbreak of Varicella (Chickenpox) occurred in a US daycare centre for fully vaccinated children. Varicella developed in 25 of 88 children (28.4 percent) between December 1, 2000, and January 11, 2001. A case occurred in a healthy child who had been vaccinated three years previously and who infected more than 50 percent of his classmates who had no history of varicella. The effectiveness of the vaccine was 44.0 percent against disease of any severity.Children who had been vaccinated three years or more before the outbreak were at greater risk for vaccine failure than those who had been vaccinated more recently."

"And here’s some vaccine failures for measles: Five cases of measles secondary vaccine failure with confirmed seroconversion after live measles vaccination. (Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease vol. 29, no. 2, 1997, pp.187-90): Two, five, seven and twelve years after vaccination with further attenuated live measles vaccine, three of five patients experienced modified measles infection, and the remaining two had typical measles. "This may be the first SVF case report that confirms the existence of completely waning immunity in recipients of the further attenuated live measles vaccines."
Scandinavian Journal of Infection Disease

Just recently, Dr. Kari Simonsen, a pediatrician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA, said one in five children who are vaccinated for whooping cough will still get the disease. She said efficacy of the vaccine was 'comparatively low', but said
'It's the best vaccine we can build to date.'
Young children who receive vaccinations against whooping cough are not fully protected against the disease three to six years after their shots, a new study suggests. Msnbc.msn.com

Victor Plotkin - an epidemiologist from Lake County in the US has reported that there have been 82 cases of pertussis in the county so far this year.

"Plotkin said the county did see very high numbers of cases during a nationwide outbreak of pertussis in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, there were 152 cases of pertussis and 135 cases in 2005. However, before that, pertussis cases in the county had averaged about 8 to 10 a year for many years.

Plotkin said the 2004 and 2005 pertussis outbreak appears that it may have been attributed to waning immunity among older children and adults who had not received booster shots. He said the most recent outbreak is a bit more puzzling because many of the children who are becoming ill are younger children who were recently vaccinated."
Omaha World Harold

"16 year old girl died of meningitis B after kissing her boyfriend who'd just had the meningitis C vaccine. Scientists proved the bug was a mutated version of the vaccine virus+ New England Journal of Medicine

Vaccination Is Steady, but Pertussis Is Surging - NYTimes.com

I could go on and on but you get my point. Heard immunity is far from perfect. Vaccines aren't fool proof, they don't always work, they wear off, people don't get boosters in time, live vaccines spread disease to suppressed individuals, the vaccinated spread illness. There is plenty of proof that the vaccinated get these diseases and spread them.
So, I would think all of you would understand how idiot it seems as an excuse to me. I'm not an anti vaccine mom but I can clearly see their point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top