Are anti-vaxxers liable if their children spread preventable diseases? (Massachusetts, doctor, Florida)
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.
The entire course of vaccinations takes a few years. A child can be on schedule for all their vaccinations but hasn't finished the whole course yet. For example there is a case of a 5-month-old who caught measles from a child who wasn't vaccinated. The 5-month-old was too young to have all the vaccinations yet, therefore must rely on everyone around her to be measles-free and/or vaccinated against measles. But because she was in contact with an un-vaccinated, measles-infected child, the baby caught the measles too. Her parents are livid because they had her on schedule for vaccinations but she got sick anyway due to the sickly anti-vax child.
Vaccines are about taking reasonable precautions and minimizing risk of certain diseases. Forget vaccines, even regular medicines and surgical procedures don't have a 100% guarantee cure rate. So does that mean that if you or your kid falls sick, you won't show them to a doctor or give your kid medicine?
Or would you refuse to wear a seat belt just because it does not 100% guarantee your safety in a car crash?
I find it utterly strange how people have such different standards and expectations when it comes to vaccines. There are no 100% guarantees in life, and especially in the medical field.
Forget about the fake study linking vaccines to autism. Even if it were true, the chances of autism are so very small compared to the benefit of safeguarding your kid against many of these life threatening diseases.
If you see the TV and magazine ads for most medicines, you will see a huge list of side effects, many of which will have serious things like heart failure, organ failure, etc. Still people take medicines because the risk of side effects is much smaller than the benefit of the medicine. So why treat vaccines any differently?
And if you think vaccines are some medical industry conspiracy (never mind that the rest of the world's 5 billion people all take vaccines), then why are regular medicines not a medical industry conspiracy too? Might as well go back to the stone ages.
No, we have already established that all vaccines are not equally important, you admitted you understood the concept when we went over what vaccines I have not had (yellow fever, Japanese Encephalitis, Q fever, etc). I understand you feel like you understand the subject, but nursing school spends very little time on epidemiology. Go, read up, learn and become a more effective advocate for vaccination. If you truly understand the complex issue, and how different populations face different risks, then you will be able to give better advice.
I guess you're talking to me?
You have made an attempt to discredit my education and background. That's quite insulting as you have no clue about me.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-19-2016 at 12:46 PM..
You mean the same doctors who are getting rich by telling you to vaccinate? The same doctors who take money from pharmaceutical companies? So it must be true then?
You don't even understand how vaccines work, but somehow you know millions of doctors were suddenly getting rich from promoting vaccinations? Which, by the way, is pretty much non-existent thing.
". What if you're planning to wait till age 4 or 5 and in the meantime Grandma comes down with shingles and exposes your child to the chickenpox virus?"
What if Newborn baby is too young to be vaccinated for Chicken Pox? What if DADDY is too young (33) to be vaccinated for Shingles? BTW, it has surprised me to hear of more young adults getting Shingles in their 30's.
My SIL's Shingles was on his back. He just washed his hands and covered up his rash with a shirt when he held his baby. He also went to work (public school teacher) wearing a shirt. My husband did the same when he had it, before Grandson was born. Yes, he had his Shingles shot, but still came down with. He was under a lot of stress after his heart attack, as was my SIL as a new Father.
The rash has to be oozing, as I think you said, and another person has to touch it for it to be contagious for chicken pox. Both their doctors told them to just cover up the rash, and go to work.
Didn't they lower the age for that vaccination from 60 to 50? Maybe they need to lower it even more to include anyone who has ever had Chicken Pox?
Shingles is somewhat contagious. Many people call their pediatrician's office when they learn that Grandma has shingles, asking if it's safe for GM to be around the kids. OR, they call and say that the kids were with GM yesterday, and today she went to the dr and found out she has shingles. Generally, if the kids are vaccinated for chickenpox, especially if they've had their second dose (given in Colorado at K entry), there's little concern. For unvaccinated kids, the situation is a little more dicey. If the rash is covered, it's probably OK for the child to interact with the grandparents. Sometimes, however, GM doesn't know she has shingles until after she's had contact with the kids, and if she has the lesions on an open area of her body, it's quite possible the kids had contact with some of the pus in the lesions and could get chickenpox. I will point out that a work situation is far different from a home setting, where kids are getting hugs and having other close skin-to-skin interaction. Shingles Causes - Mayo Clinic
There will always be people who live in denial. During the H1N1 outbreak about a decade ago, my employer offered free flu shots to all employees. We didn't even have to go anywhere, they hired a nurse to come to our office and give the shots during work hours. I had an office mate who declined the shot because he insisted he was 60 years old and had never had the flu. Well, a few weeks later he came down with the flu. He lost 4 days of work and hacked and snorted for a month with "The worst cold he had ever had." I sat six feet from him and didn't catch it. The flu vaccine is not 100% effective, but it is very effective.
I have had a flu shot every year for the last 30 years. It has relieved me of the paranoia you seem to think is necessary to avoid contagious diseases. I do not have to hide in my house during flu season. I can go out at night and not miss parties because I have to meet a rigid bedtime. I can spend 10 days in hunting camp eating no fruits or vegetables and not be afraid I will be hospitalized when I return to civilization.
I haven't had a flu shot in 30 years and no flu during that time. I didn't hide in my house either. I have been exposed and even cared for family members sick with the flu in my home on three occasions and didn't catch it. If I get the flu, I will have the flu. It's not that big of a concern to me.
No, and here's why. The flu shots aren't effective against every strain of the flu; hell, its not even 60% effective, and that's in a good year (Flu Vaccine Nearly 60 Percent Effective | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC). While they may "help," once you get the flu shot, you can still (and many, many do) get the flu. It doesn't have the same effect as, say, the measles vaccine does.
What I do not understand is why reducing the risk of flu by 60% is a bad thing. It would be wonderful if we had a flu vaccine that worked against all strains and that did not have to be reformulated every year. There is active research on that. Meanwhile, the current vaccines are what we have. Why reject them? Does a vaccine have to be near 100% effective before you will consider using it?
People who are vaccinated but still get the flu tend to have milder illness, reducing the risk of hospitalization. I know an infectious disease expert who says it is not people who have been vaccinated for flu who end up in his ICU.
No, we have already established that all vaccines are not equally important, you admitted you understood the concept when we went over what vaccines I have not had (yellow fever, Japanese Encephalitis, Q fever, etc). I understand you feel like you understand the subject, but nursing school spends very little time on epidemiology. Go, read up, learn and become a more effective advocate for vaccination. If you truly understand the complex issue, and how different populations face different risks, then you will be able to give better advice.
I think you are being disingenuous here. The vaccines you mention not having had are not routinely given in the US because those diseases are not significant risks to people living here.
Both Hib and influenza are significant risks here. It is important to prevent both of them, and as Katarina pointed out, doctors do not rank vaccines by degrees of importance. In fact, a friend who is a pediatrician described having a conversation with a mom who was hesitant about vaccines. The doc discussed the vaccines recommended for her baby at that visit. Mom was finally persuaded to allow only one vaccine. The doc had to choose just one. I think she selected the rotavirus vaccine because it is time sensitive. That does not mean the rotavirus vaccine is more important than any of the others, though.
The Hib vaccine is not "more" important than the flu vaccine or the MMR or the DTaP or the chickenpox vaccine. They are all important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Thank you. You proved my point because the "health professionals" on this thread disagree with you and think that Herd Immunity would be achieved if "more people got their Flu Shots". Search their posts on this thread, let alone the Media.
Herd immunity could be achieved with flu vaccine if more people took it. What makes you think it could not?
"Herd protection against influenza was maintained 1 year after the completion of a community-based influenza-vaccination program in school-aged children in central Texas, according to a presentation at the Eleventh Annual Conference on Vaccine Research, held in Baltimore, Maryland, from May 5 to 7. [2008]"
" 'Mathematical modelers suggest that the herd-immunity threshold for influenza could be 75% or less; thus, if immunization rates in excess of 90% could be achieved, seasonal epidemics of influenza might be averted in their entirety.' "
If you are vaccinated what does it matter if a non vaccinated person is around you? Maybe we should be asking if the vaccine works or not. I don't see it as the non vaccinated persons fault. If anyone gets sick then it is up to them not the person that was vaccinated. The only people that should get sick are the people that are also not vaccinated.
You do not think, because of how you feel about science, that there might be other people who think that vaccinations ARE experimentations? We have people on here who think these vaccinations should be forced, or either "vile traitors" should be punished and put to death? Do you advocate doing that to increase vaccination rates, or whatever procedure your profession deems necessary? This is what we are talking about. Freedom to choose for whatever reason a person may have.
You do know that the more you push this, the more people will dig in their heels and fight back for whatever their reasons may be. All the rambling on and on about the science is moot if a person chooses they want no medical interventions. You probably don't.
Neither the general public or their organized government is responsible for people's mental illness. As long as they are not a danger to themselves or others they can think what they want, but a case can be made that the anti-vaxxers are a danger to others. My state just stripped the religious exemption from the anti-vaxxers. The only way their children can attend public schools is if they have a physician's statement that the child can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. Naturopaths don't count. Over the hill Playboy playmates don't count. They have to home school their children, and if a child becomes ill they can be prosecuted for child endangerment. If their child dies, they can be prosecuted for negligent homicide. We have faith healing parents in prison for that crime right now.
I haven't had a flu shot in 30 years and no flu during that time. I didn't hide in my house either. I have been exposed and even cared for family members sick with the flu in my home on three occasions and didn't catch it. If I get the flu, I will have the flu. It's not that big of a concern to me.
Like I said, there will always be people in denial. You will believe what you believe without regard to the facts.
If you are vaccinated what does it matter if a non vaccinated person is around you? Maybe we should be asking if the vaccine works or not. I don't see it as the non vaccinated persons fault. If anyone gets sick then it is up to them not the person that was vaccinated. The only people that should get sick are the people that are also not vaccinated.
I take it you have not read the thread.
For some people the vaccine does not work. The woman who died of measles in Washington State last year had been vaccinated but was immunosuppressed.
Many of those who are not vaccinated are too young for the vaccine. Some have medical contraindications to receiving them. Some are not anti-vaccine but have not gotten them because of lack of access. Not everyone who is unvaccinated is a vaccine refuser. However, healthy people who do not vaccinate by choice are a preventable hazard to every unvaccinated person.
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.
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.
