Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[KingM]

Since the question of whether or not to vaccinate has come up on the board many times, I thought you might find the following article discussing the ethics of vaccine refusal interesting. Note that she accepts that there are varying opinions as to the efficacy and dangers of vaccines and that her opinion takes into account these disagreements.

 

The Ethics of Vaccine Refusal.

 

Please read the the article before commenting. Otherwise, all calmly stated viewpoints are welcome.

[mommaduck]

Sorry, the title was enough for me. I don't care to be called names when I have a valid reason, having nearly lost a child to a vaccine and plausible genetic connections, for not vaccinating my children. I refuse to waste my time and emotional energy on any article that starts off in that manner.

[elegantlion]

I'm not the most well-versed on the issue, but I've read enough to know that many well informed and educated persons decide NOT to vaccinate.

 

I found the article's slant of "I'm smarter and know better than you, so you're wrong" attitude insulting to people like mommaduck who have reached these decisions through difficult circumstances.

[astrid]

Sorry, the title was enough for me. I don't care to be called names when I have a valid reason, having nearly lost a child to a vaccine and plausible genetic connections, for not vaccinating my children. I refuse to waste my time and emotional energy on any article that starts off in that manner.

 

Curious---- you found the title of the article to be "name-calling?"

What name? Honest question--- I haven't read the article or even clicked on the link, but "The Ethics of Vaccine Refusal" could go either way, no? If you haven't read it, what makes you feel ridiculed?

 

Really, honest question. I'm not making any sort of judgement or reference about your vaccine choice whatsoever. Just curious as to what in the title was hurtful.

 

Peace,

Astrid

[Tess in the Burbs]

if you haven't watched your child react to a vaccine you have no opinion regarding my choice to not do it anymore!!!

[MomLovesClassics]

I did not like the tone of the article/blog at all. It should be up to the parents to decide for themselves if they choose to vaccinate or not. Vaccines should not be required by the government. That is my opinion and I am entitled. Another person may feel safer knowing that all or most children are vaccinated. Insinuating others are immoral because they believe differently, is on the other hand disrespectful. Suggesting that unvaccinated children should be kept isolated is absurd.

[astrid]

Okay, I see why. The OP didn't link the actual title. Since she used a hyperlink to link the words "Ethics of Vaccine Refusal" I assumed that was the title of the article.

 

Sorry...... I didn't click on it before asking, mostly so that I didn't form some sort of bias. I've got strong opinions on the subject myself.

 

Astrid

[*********]

Curious---- you found the title of the article to be "name-calling?"

What name? Honest question--- I haven't read the article or even clicked on the link, but "The Ethics of Vaccine Refusal" could go either way, no? If you haven't read it, what makes you feel ridiculed?

 

Really, honest question. I'm not making any sort of judgement or reference about your vaccine choice whatsoever. Just curious as to what in the title was hurtful.

 

Peace,

Astrid

 

Astrid, when you click on the link, it takes you to an article titled:

 

'Vaccine refuseniks are free-riders.'

 

Um, yeah. I don't care for it, either. You decide for your kids, I'll decide for mine, thankyouverymuch.

[Orthodox6]

I was struck by how narrow the article is. The author's bottom line appears to be "Needs of the herd always supercede needs of the individual." I detected no additional "substance" to the piece.

 

Now I'm not going to be so silly as to say, "Ergo, the blog author supports communism because communism elevates the "good of the masses" over the "good of the individual." For starters, I probably am misrepresenting communism, even though I have heard such simplistic descriptions of the system.

 

"Vaccination refusal" relates to a much broader relevance of "ethics" than this article acknowledges.

 

Now that the information is available -- and it was not available to "little people in society", such as I am, until a handful of years ago -- Now that the information is available that some vaccines are derived from murdered children (aka "abortion"), I refuse to have anything to do with those specific vaccines. This is a moral stance, an ethical stance. The author says nothing about this application of ethics.

 

(The bell rang; I have to go pick up my son, so can't write any more now. . .)

[nmoira]

 

Curious---- you found the title of the article to be "name-calling?"

The blog article title is: "Vaccine refuseniks are free-riders."

[astrid]

yeah, I saw that after I posted. Since the OP didn't link the actual title, but inserted her own, I wasn't sure what offended Mommaduck since she said she hadn't read the article.

 

As I've said, I've got strong feelings about this myself.

 

astrid

[KingM]

I'm not the most well-versed on the issue, but I've read enough to know that many well informed and educated persons decide NOT to vaccinate.

 

The author admits that there are costs to vaccinate, that there are arguments to be made about asthma and autism, and speaks later about people who might not be able to take the vaccine due to allergic reactions to vaccine components or compromised immune systems.

 

That's the point of the article, in fact, that there are costs to bear for vaccination, but that one group is paying all of those costs, while others, who did not pay the costs, are enjoying some of the benefits.

 

In our case, we have vaccinated our children, but we did delay some of those vaccines to the point where doctors and playgroup directors and the like were giving us a hard time about it. I felt that it was safer to let the children's immune systems develop further before vaccinating, but I'm also forced to confront the fact that I could safely do so precisely because other children were getting vaccinated at a younger age, thus bearing more of the risks.

 

Unless you think that vaccines are worthless in preventing disease (and you might consider walking through a 19th Century graveyard and reading the ages when some of these children are dead, as well as years when a whole bunch of young children died in bunches) then it's hard to escape this conclusion.

 

This is the ethical dilemma I find interesting.

[Julie in CA]

if you haven't watched your child react to a vaccine you have no opinion regarding my choice to not do it anymore!!!

Well, that is, unless you've watched your immune-compromised child fighting for their life from a disease that's easily prevented in the general population through vaccines. Then it's possible someone *does* have an opinion. {just playing devil's advocate a bit...}

[mommaduck]

Well, that is, unless you've watched your immune-compromised child fighting for their life from a disease that's easily prevented in the general population through vaccines. Then it's possible someone *does* have an opinion. {just playing devil's advocate a bit...}

 

Vaccines are supposed to keep one from getting sick, it does not prevent them from being carriers if they are exposed. Thus an unvax'd child is no more a risk, if not less of a risk, to be around as they may not have been exposed to xyz where a vax'd child has most certainly been exposed to xyz (some vax's shed, some do not). This is where misunderstanding comes in, when people act as though an unvax'd child is carrying all kinds of things and vax'd children are treated as though they are "sanitized" from all diseases.

[Spy Car]

This is the ethical dilemma I find interesting.

 

I do too. The logic of vaccines preventing widespread outbreaks rests largely on wide-scale participation. When that breaks down, you give openings to diseases that could be prevented to take hold.

 

And I'm especially concerned for the most vulnerable. Children who have conditions (things like weakened immune systems, or genetic abnormalities) that make them bad candidates for vaccinations (because the risks for them are too great).

 

Wide-spread compliance in populations with low-risk factors protects those kids, and spotty compliance puts them under threat.

 

Bill

[KingM]

Vaccines are supposed to keep one from getting sick, it does not prevent them from being carriers if they are exposed. Thus an unvax'd child is no more a risk, if not less of a risk, to be around as they may not have been exposed to xyz where a vax'd child has most certainly been exposed to xyz (some vax's shed, some do not). This is where misunderstanding comes in, when people act as though an unvax'd child is carrying all kinds of things and vax'd children are treated as though they are "sanitized" from all diseases.

 

It is the pool of vaccinated children, rather than exposure individuals, that provide the benefit to unvaccinated children.

 

Also, the article points out that vaccinated children carry attenuated versions of the virus, so that if unvaccinated children get the virus from them, it is a less dangerous version.

[MelanieM]

Unless you think that vaccines are worthless in preventing disease (and you might consider walking through a 19th Century graveyard and reading the ages when some of these children are dead, as well as years when a whole bunch of young children died in bunches) then it's hard to escape this conclusion.

 

 

Based on my research, I do personally think that vaccines are worthless in preventing most diseases. And I certainly feel they do more harm to the immune system than any proposed good. There are lots of theories on the decline of disease that debunk the idea that vaccines have much, if anything, to do with it. (Most of the 'big' diseases were on the decline when vaccines were introduced, due to better hygiene and nutrition. Many children still get childhood diseases that they are vaccinated against, but the diagnosis is referred to as something else because of expectation due to vaccination status, or they never go for diagnosis at all because it's simply not a big deal to contract the illness. As a population we gain natural herd immunity against illness as it is introduced naturally, so a decline in death rates will occur because our systems adapt. Etc, etc.)

 

So no, I don't consider myself a "free-rider" at all. Therefore, the whole point of this article is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

[MelanieM]

I'm curious how people who take this viewpoint feel about things like the chicken pox vaccine. This one appears to be cutting down on the number of cases of CP, to the point of where many children are unable to contract in naturally. Then the children who do get the vaccine lose immunity as they age, putting them at risk as adults. And adults cannot receive natural immunity boosts from continued exposure, risking their own long-term immunity. Plus there is also evidence to suggest that the CP vaccine is leading to a greater number of cases of shingles in children, which is much more risky than CP.

 

In this case, isn't it the vaccinated population that is the free-rider, as the non-vaccinated struggle to maintain a natural form of immunity for the good of the population?

 

Oh, and worth noting that the leading reason for the introduction of CP vaccine, as documented by official government bodies, was to cut down on the amount of time parents had to miss work to deal with sick children. So this is not at all a vaccine that was motivitated by dire side effects of contracting the disease. (Not to dismiss the fact that some people certainly can have dire side effects of a natural illness, which is of course relevant to the individual even if not relevant to the population as a whole.)

[mommaduck]

It is the pool of vaccinated children, rather than exposure individuals, that provide the benefit to unvaccinated children.

 

Also, the article points out that vaccinated children carry attenuated versions of the virus, so that if unvaccinated children get the virus from them, it is a less dangerous version.

 

You missed the point in conjunction with the issue I was addressing from a person above me.

[Caraway]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

[stripe]

I'm curious how people who take this viewpoint feel about things like the chicken pox vaccine.

My neighbor's children were all vaccinated against chicken pox and then, while out of the country visiting extended family, all of them contracted it. She told me that among her family, this is what happens to everyone -- they all get the vaccine and the disease.

 

?!

 

What's that about?

[mommaduck]

My neighbor's children were all vaccinated against chicken pox and then, while out of the country visiting extended family, all of them contracted it. She told me that among her family, this is what happens to everyone -- they all get the vaccine and the disease.

 

?!

 

What's that about?

 

Happened to my nieces and nephews. Only their doctor told them that they WOULD get CP from it, but most likely a lighter form (:lol: nope, they got it full blast).

[KJB]

Based on my research, I do personally think that vaccines are worthless in preventing most diseases. And I certainly feel they do more harm to the immune system than any proposed good. There are lots of theories on the decline of disease that debunk the idea that vaccines have much, if anything, to do with it. (Most of the 'big' diseases were on the decline when vaccines were introduced, due to better hygiene and nutrition. Many children still get childhood diseases that they are vaccinated against, but the diagnosis is referred to as something else because of expectation due to vaccination status, or they never go for diagnosis at all because it's simply not a big deal to contract the illness. As a population we gain natural herd immunity against illness as it is introduced naturally, so a decline in death rates will occur because our systems adapt. Etc, etc.)

 

So no, I don't consider myself a "free-rider" at all. Therefore, the whole point of this article is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

 

Why do you think that the vast majority of medical doctors believe in the efficacy of vaccination? Do you believe they are misinformed or uneducated or ????

 

I ask this question as a genuinely honest query with no intention of snark.

[MomLovesClassics]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

Why do you think that the vast majority of medical doctors believe in the efficacy of vaccination? Do you believe they are misinformed or uneducated or ????

 

I ask this question as a genuinely honest query with no intention of snark.

 

There are many issues in which *many* (not all) doctors don't actually research things. They rely on texts and pharm reps to give them the "lowdown". I have known doctors that have "off record" (after giving the whole spiel) told their patients that they don't recommend certain vaccines and don't vaccinate their own children/grandchildren with them. I've known nurses that have refused various vaccines after personal research. These are not uneducated individuals. The issue is not cut and dry in either direction. Their is much dispute. However, the side with the money, the government's ear, and the best fear mongering is what is most heard.

[stripe]

The trouble for me is that I know someone whose whole life has been affected (albeit not severely) by childhood polio, and someone else by hepatitis. I would have a hard time dismissing the devastation of some of these awful diseases.

[mommaduck]

The trouble for me is that I know someone whose whole life has been affected (albeit not severely) by childhood polio, and someone else by hepatitis. I would have a hard time dismissing the devastation of some of these awful diseases.

 

No one is. That is another presumption that is often made. Most that do not vaccinate or delay vaccination, typically do so only after much research and weighing of the risks...many times those two things are not done prior to a reaction or loss. I actually ENCOURAGE people to research it and come to their own decision for their family, not just "do what the doctor says" (doctors don't agree on everything, including this). My issue is when people want to dictate to everyone without consideration.

[Orthodox6]

I'll side with you for those two. We have a friend who contracted polio just six weeks before the vaccine was released for general public use. He became a quadriplegic and lives in an iron lung.

 

The trouble for me is that I know someone whose whole life has been affected (albeit not severely) by childhood polio, and someone else by hepatitis. I would have a hard time dismissing the devastation of some of these awful diseases.

[KingM]

I'll side with you for those two. We have a friend who contracted polio just six weeks before the vaccine was released for general public use. He became a quadriplegic and lives in an iron lung.

 

Yes, the elimination of Polio and Smallpox through mass vaccinations is one of the greatest accomplishments in human history, IMO.

 

I'm doubtful about a vaccine to eliminate nuisance illnesses like Chicken Pox, however.

[KJB]

There are many issues in which *many* (not all) doctors don't actually research things. They rely on texts and pharm reps to give them the "lowdown". I have known doctors that have "off record" (after giving the whole spiel) told their patients that they don't recommend certain vaccines and don't vaccinate their own children/grandchildren with them. I've known nurses that have refused various vaccines after personal research. These are not uneducated individuals. The issue is not cut and dry in either direction. Their is much dispute. However, the side with the money, the government's ear, and the best fear mongering is what is most heard.

 

The issue is cut and dry for the medical community. They support vaccination. The vast vast majority advocate that both patients and their own families get vaccinated.

 

Claiming that they only support vaccination on the record but behind closed doors they admit to different beliefs just doesn't make sense. Why would they do that?

 

What do you know that these doctors don't? Or do you just think they're dumb uniformed undereducated sheep? Or do you think they have been manipulated in to believing false research or have some financial incentive?

 

I just get confused by people who wouldn't hesitate to seek medical help for an emergency situation but on a day to day basis treat the same community of professionals as suspect. Would you seek traditional medical care if you broke a bone? Or if you had a stroke? Or if you had a heart attack?

 

I ask this respectfully. I just don't understand.

[Orthodox6]

I don't know the extent to which doctors do not vaccinate within their own families. I can't rule out that there are some who don't. Their profession, however, is regulated by many laws, so I would posit there are some doctors who observe "majority rule" in their medical practice, but make different choices for their own children. Similarly, to whatever extent, there are public school educators who send their own children to private schools, or who even homeschool their own children !

 

I'll add one more "ethical" consideration to the general discussion of vaccines. Although this vaccine is not mandatory (and thanks be to God and to the public uproar in Texas when the governor tried to force use of the vaccine), there is an "ethical" component to use of the Gardasil vaccine. Our pediatrician already has told me that she will push the vaccine when my dd is a bit older. I already have told her that she will be wasting her time because I shall refuse to authorize it. If this vaccine ever becomes a legal requirement, I shall break the law with clear conscience.

[mommaduck]

The issue is cut and dry for the medical community. They support vaccination. The vast vast majority advocate that both patients and their own families get vaccinated.

 

In general, not as a whole. In fact, there was a major issue with a hospital that tried to require all nurses get certain vaccinations. A group of nurses put up a HUGE fight. And the fact that some doctors are willing to open up to their patients about this issue behind closed doors should say something. BTW, this isn't just my experience, but also the experience others have attested to.

 

Claiming that they only support vaccination on the record but behind closed doors they admit to different beliefs just doesn't make sense. Why would they do that?

 

They are REQUIRED to give certain information. There is other information that is NOT given (death and reaction statistics, etc). The reason is that some doctors can run into problems with various associates and associations for giving out this information. There is politics in the medical community just as anywhere else.

 

What do you know that these doctors don't? Or do you just think they're dumb uniformed undereducated sheep? Or do you think they have been manipulated in to believing false research or have some financial incentive?

 

I never claimed to know "something they don't". I used to work for a pharmaceutical rep. I know how it works. Yes, there are incentives given to doctors, that is a fact of the industry. Are they uninformed, not always. Various doctors look to the pharm reps for their information or certain publications. Some doctors dig deeper on some subjects than others. No doctor has time to research the intricacies of each issue and each drug. I have enough relatives in the medical field that I'm not blind to strengths and weaknesses. They are human, not superman. We still have to do our own research and be our own and our childrens' advocates. Things in the medical field change constantly as well.

 

I just get confused by people who wouldn't hesitate to seek medical help for an emergency situation but on a day to day basis treat the same community of professionals as suspect. Would you seek traditional medical care if you broke a bone? Or if you had a stroke? Or if you had a heart attack?

 

I ask this respectfully. I just don't understand.

 

Again, this is presumption and broadbrushing. Doctors don't know everything and I don't avoid doctors. Just as doctors don't always agree amoungst themselves, I don't always agree with EVERY doctor.

 

FYI, I was TOLD BY A DOCTOR, to research this particular issue and to consider NOT vaccinating my children anymore because of nearly losing my daughter to a vaccination reaction! The doctor after her agreed IF I promised to keep reading on the issue as changes and information come out (I have done that). Our current doctor is also supportive of our decision, particularly based on the facts that we have had a life threatening negative reaction, our life style, and that she knows I research and keep informed. I have a lot of respect for these doctors. I've also lost a baby due to one new doctor's mistake and nearly lost my life due to a mistake by an intern. I have grace for both of them, but it shows that we do need to be our own advocate and that they are mere humans.

Edited June 10, 2009 by mommaduck

[Greta]

Just for the record, my daughter is fully vaccinated. If I had it to do over again, she would probably still be fully vaccinated, though on a delayed schedule, and never more than one at a time, like I foolishly agreed to before. That said, however, I agree with everything that Caraway pointed out.

 

Why is the choice not to vaccinate constantly under criticism and scrutiny, while the practices of the pharmaceutical companies are above questioning?

 

Yes, I vaccinate because I *think* it's better than the alternative. But that shouldn't have to be such a hard call to make. There could and should be higher quality, safer vaccinations available, and then there would be a whole lot less debate over this issue. And that ethical responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers.

 

 

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

[MelanieM]

Why do you think that the vast majority of medical doctors believe in the efficacy of vaccination? Do you believe they are misinformed or uneducated or ????

 

I ask this question as a genuinely honest query with no intention of snark.

 

I think mommaduck responded well to this question. I believe it varies from doctor to doctor... some are misinformed and uneducated around the issues, having only received their information from the people actually selling the product. Others have read all of the same information those of us who don't vaccinate have read, but have come to different conclusions. Some don't recommend vaccination, even though it is the norm that is expected of them. Others are certainly carrying mixed views and do something different for their own families than what is recommended to their patients. So basically, they're people like the rest of us and draw conclusions in the same way the general public does.

 

The trouble for me is that I know someone whose whole life has been affected (albeit not severely) by childhood polio, and someone else by hepatitis. I would have a hard time dismissing the devastation of some of these awful diseases.

 

I don't think anyone is saying these diseases can't be devastating. (I have a dear relative impacted by childhood polio, so I do understand on a personal level.) But knowing that a disease can cause harm doesn't really have anything to do with signing up to be injected with other harmful things that may or may not help protect you from the big bad disease. For some, that's like trading one risk for another. And if you do the math, in most cases the risk of side effects from the vaccine is greater than the risk of devastating harm from the illness the vaccine is meant to protect you from.

 

Along those lines, I know someone who lost a daughter because of vaccine damage. So do I allow fear of the disease to sway me, or fear of the vaccine? How is someone supposed to choose, when fear is the motivating factor? (Fear has nothing to do with my family's decision making process on this subject.)

[Tea Time]

************That's the point of the article, in fact, that there are costs to bear for vaccination, but that one group is paying all of those costs, while others, who did not pay the costs, are enjoying some of the benefits*************

 

LOL! Welcome to our world!

 

I think this topic is linked to a much bigger issue which is the decaying trust people have for the scientific community in general, but especially for the medical sciences. The medical community can take advantage of its reputation from days gone by (polio/small pox) and our participation in the social contract to reap a huge benefit. I am not saying they are, but I am saying we must continually scrutinize them to defend against it.

 

I can honestly say that my parents trusted doctors and research. Heck, they trusted the schools, too. I cannot say that greed and corruption truly are more prevalent today than 40 or 50 years ago, but I can say that I am aware of it now; whereas, my mother did not know about it so did not have to factor it in to her decisions. Consider these articles which are about research in general not vaccines, but the principle applies to that research as well:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece

 

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/06/mark-lanier-disses-record.html

 

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/05/corrupted-research.html

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237

 

http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/cc/cc060209.htm

 

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/06/negative-studies.html

[BigMamaBird]

We're a vaccinating family and I found the tone of this article condescending and the title insulting. I expect the "Vaxers" to respect the parental rights of "Non-Vaxers" and vice versa.

[Blessedfamily]

Just for the record, my daughter is fully vaccinated. If I had it to do over again, she would probably still be fully vaccinated, though on a delayed schedule, and never more than one at a time, like I foolishly agreed to before. That said, however, I agree with everything that Caraway pointed out.

 

Why is the choice not to vaccinate constantly under criticism and scrutiny, while the practices of the pharmaceutical companies are above questioning?

 

Yes, I vaccinate because I *think* it's better than the alternative. But that shouldn't have to be such a hard call to make. There could and should be higher quality, safer vaccinations available, and then there would be a whole lot less debate over this issue. And that ethical responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers.

 

:iagree:

'xactly.

 

I would do it again, but on my own schedule (Though I have slowed them down.)

[Elaine]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

 

:iagree:

 

 

What I also despise is the third degree that I have received from medical personnel upon refusing vaccinations, in particular, the flu vax. Now, fortunately, I have a way of making my feelings and opinions known in such a fashion that they quickly back down.;) I am not rude, but I am firm.

[Kathy in MD]

As a heavy user of the medical system, I too have run into problems.

 

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

I've been give medicines that were later discovered to have been contanimated, but I needed the drug. My health care providers hoped that the problem had been resolved and carry on. I've never had a noticible reaction, so for me their trust has worked.

 

I also am knowingly given radioactive medicines and other poisonous medicines orally and intraveniously and it's a balancing act. The benefits are trusted to outweigh the harm of small, though repeated, doses. The doctors also try to give other drugs to conteract the worst of the effects.

 

I've even had a silicon implant prior to some anacdotal evidence in the 90's that they were dangerous. Strange, but my various doctors who have seen many, many implants that had been installed for years hadn't seen any problems. They assured me that there wasn't any problems, but some loud individuals got the silicon banned. The saline doesn't work as well, but the urban myth won. Oh, and the doctors that assured me of their safety did't install them so they had no financial stake in them. The only doctor who wanted my sicone implant out was the one who was legally responsible for it.

 

BTW, it's not only through medicines that our dc are given many of these poisons. A lot it done through our food system, spraying for the perfect lawn, keeping bugs and pests out of our homes, etc.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

I've always been given sheets listing all the side effects and SUPPOSED side effects. And it only takes one report to make it onto the side effect listing. I know because I am the only person to report a particular side effect to a particular drug. It took several complaints to my doctor because he wanted more than 1 incidence of circumstantial evidence (it wasn't dangerous) before his office reported it and there is NO, I repeat, NO proof that the drug caused it, but that drug's warning sheet now lists my complaint under rare side effects. I do know that some companies have not included all side effects but many do.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It's also cheaper for the insurance company AND the parent. The parent doesn't need to come in more frequently, possibly taking time off from work. Also how often do parents NOT complete a series of shots because they forget or it's not possible or it's inconvenient. School systems have arrainged for reduced and free shots at convenient times and locations and parents still can't be bothered to get their children the shots until their dc are denied entry to the schools. (the parents are offered forms for exemptions and they don't do that either.)

 

Patients do skip follow up doses for various reasons. And we now have resistant TB thanks to patients not taking all their medicine.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It's not uncommon for many situations to be misdiagnosed, and usually it's the rarer situations are missed at first, so I'm not surprised if a doctor starts looking for causes that are most likely and not vacinated for.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

I agree. But I also know that many patients want antibiotics prescribed even if their doctor is against it because they have a virus. I believe some doctors will give placebos for this type of patient. Also remember that there are many other parents who don't get any sick days and therefore a sick child may have to left at home alone or go hungry because their parent isn't working. Life is never black and white.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

 

Well, people do often overreact and panic. And sometimes they take a rare possibilitlity and turn it into a 100% certainty. (see silicon implant for an example) Also do you know that they *are* lying to you or are they giving you their knowledge, expertise and the results of their research. They may be wrong, but how do you know you aren't also wrong. There are a lot of urban myths and old wives tales out there. Some have value and others don't. I work with my doctors to determine which things may help, which may do no harm and which to avoid.

 

Also be aware that doctors know that medicine is still an art as well as a science. Doctors and researchers are working on trying to discover which patients would be harmed by drugs that generally are beneficial to the population as a whole. Unfortunately this is still very much a trial and error situation today.

 

I have found that instead of hiding rare side effects, my doctors DO discuss them -- partly to make sure I know when to panic and call them and partially to cover themselves if the unexpected happens. I also know that **I** always tend to brush off the rarer side effects, and hope for the best. And then I cause all sorts of excitement when I develop the unusual. :tongue_smilie:

 

I sorry, but I don't go into the doctor's office assuming he's out to damage my health for his gain or his ease. I trust that he's a dedicated individual who wants to give his patients the healthiest life possible. I also believe that I need to be an educated consumer and be willing to discuss things with him, not go in and assume that I know all the answers. Most of all, I remember that he is human and that medicine is still an art as well as a science. So mistakes will be made.

 

You have brought up many valid concerns. But many of your assumptions, such as they're out to get you, will get in the way of good health care. Discuss your concerns with your doctor. Sometimes he may not see the need for your concern but will still cater to them if he doesn't see any major, negative side effects. But discuss them rationally to gain his confidence, don't go in with a chip on your shoulder.

[mommaduck]

Interesting:

 

Researcher and author Neil Z. Miller reports that approximately 66% of pediatricians and obstetricians refused the MMR shot in one study.[1] An equal percentage of doctors refused the Hepatitis B shot, mostly citing safety concerns because of rumors of animal DNA contamination in the shots.[2] The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines.[3]

 

 

1) JAMA, 2-20-81.

2) Mendelsohn, Dr. Robert, “The Drive to Immunize Adults,” Herald of Holistic Health Newsletter, Sept.-Oct. 1985.

3) Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Dec. 1996. (AMA).

 

 

Yes, these are old facts, but it does make one wonder what the stats are today...

[Lovedtodeath]

The issue is cut and dry for the medical community. They support vaccination. The vast vast majority advocate that both patients and their own families get vaccinated.

 

Claiming that they only support vaccination on the record but behind closed doors they admit to different beliefs just doesn't make sense. Why would they do that?

 

What do you know that these doctors don't? Or do you just think they're dumb uniformed undereducated sheep? Or do you think they have been manipulated in to believing false research or have some financial incentive?

 

I just get confused by people who wouldn't hesitate to seek medical help for an emergency situation but on a day to day basis treat the same community of professionals as suspect. Would you seek traditional medical care if you broke a bone? Or if you had a stroke? Or if you had a heart attack?

 

I ask this respectfully. I just don't understand.

 

One: My doctor secretly prescribed vitamins and swore me to secrecy because he could get into trouble and possibly lose his job for doing so.

 

Two: I go to a Medical Doctor for an emergency because they work fast. I go to a Natural Doctor for a chronic problem or prevention because they do it right.

 

there is an "ethical" component to use of the Gardasil vaccine. Our pediatrician already has told me that she will push the vaccine when my dd is a bit older. I already have told her that she will be wasting her time because I shall refuse to authorize it. If this vaccine ever becomes a legal requirement, I shall break the law with clear conscience.

I think this vaccine is ridiculous. I have a great vaccine for HPV. It is called monogamy. And don't get me started on Hepatitis B. Why am I vaccinating my newborn and young child for an STD?

 

I have a lot to say:

 

Before I vaccinated Jake, I was squarely on the side of vaccinating my children and I was also of the opinion that those who do not vaccinate were being selfish and putting the rest of us at risk.

 

My son developes pneumonia every time he gets vaccinated. I tried slowing them down, doing one at a time, avoiding certain ingredients. It made no difference. He has an anaphylictic reaction (swelling of the breathway with copious mucous production) and developes pneumonia. We thought for sure it was the yeast in the vaccine, but the vaccines without yeast did it too. I did research and talked to my doctor. I found that the biggest risk (today) of being unvaccinated and contracting these diseases... is developing pneumonia. Also, the vast majority of childhood vaccinations do not protect the child at all. They are to protect others in the population. Why do they give children the most vaccines the first few years of life? I am really not sure. Maybe so that we can't see it when an older person suddenly becomes disabled in some way after a vaccine?

 

My dad has been on crutches his entire life. He now has post-polio syndrome. My mom and brother have both had meningitis. Yes it is scary to not be vaccinated, but I have found that it is scary to be vaccinated too. And if I vaccinate, I do that to my children. I look them in the eye and lie to them, telling them it will be okay, and hold them down so that a nurse can put poison into their bodies. My DD had a bad reaction to her K shots too. Not severe, but it hurt a lot and made her sick for several days. I will never forgive myself for lying to and harming my child, and I will never do it again.

 

And to top it off I was fully vaccinated and when I had DS they tested me and said that I wasn't. (MMR) So obviously, it didn't even work.

 

BTW: I added a tag that will actually work in a search thankyouverymuch.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Audrey]

:iagree:

 

 

What I also despise is the third degree that I have received from medical personnel upon refusing vaccinations, in particular, the flu vax. Now, fortunately, I have a way of making my feelings and opinions known in such a fashion that they quickly back down.;) I am not rude, but I am firm.

 

 

Yup. But I'll add that you're a better gal than I. I'm just rude. :D

[Dawn in OH]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

 

Well said. There's a great deal of replies in this thread that I agree with, so I won't bother restating all of them.

 

I will say that if the vaccines didn't contain toxic chemicals and the vaccine schedule was less aggressive, there are some vaccines that I would have my children receive. Others, like Hep B and Chicken Pox, to me, are ridiculous.

[kiana]

Not trying to stir the pot -- but children have been infected with Hep B through being bitten by an infected child. They've becoming infected through another child sneezing on an open wound. It's not only a sexually transmitted disease.

 

Of course, if you're homeschooling the chances of an infected child being in the same school are a lot smaller :):) But a young child who's infected has a high chance of ending up with a chronic infection, which is why they're recommending it now, since most people *do* have their kids in daycare/school.

[KingM]

I also don't understand the rage at the cervical cancer vaccine. Sure, you can avoid the cancer by having one and only one partner, who in turn has had one and only one partner. What percentage of the population can make that claim? 10% 20% Even if it were 50% or higher, this is a disease that kills thousands of women and it can be eliminated through vaccination.

[mommaduck]

I also don't understand the rage at the cervical cancer vaccine. Sure, you can avoid the cancer by having one and only one partner, who in turn has had one and only one partner. What percentage of the population can make that claim? 10% 20% Even if it were 50% or higher, this is a disease that kills thousands of women and it can be eliminated through vaccination.

 

 

Then you haven't read about the deaths and paralyzations associated with it. Please google.

[Peela]

 

I think this topic is linked to a much bigger issue which is the decaying trust people have for the scientific community in general, but especially for the medical sciences. The medical community can take advantage of its reputation from days gone by (polio/small pox) and our participation in the social contract to reap a huge benefit. I am not saying they are, but I am saying we must continually scrutinize them to defend against it.

 

 

 

:iagree: The medical community o longer has the right, in my mind, to ask us to blindly trust them. The pharmaceutical companies have vested interests. There is much corruption in the chain from researchers to manufacturers to public information.

Thats why people need to actually do teh nitty gritty research for themselves.

 

I dont have a problem with vaccinating against polio, which still exists in some parts of the world. Or smallpox. I am not against all vaccinations, but widespread vaccinating against diseases that are not generally life threatening in a hygienic and well nourished western country, just bombards the individual immune system with many diseases it wouldnt normally come across in one lifetime, not to mention the toxins that come along with the vaccination.

 

But one thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this debate concerns me greatly. I regret vaccinating my dd against measles- because since she has not had measles, she cannot pass the immunity to measles through her breastmilk to her breastfed baby. The vaccination does not provide her baby with that protection. The baby wil be completely unprotected in its first months. We are designed to pass on protection to our infants, and this incredible system set up by nature is completely undermined and bypassed by the vaccination system. The baby is thrown out with the bathwater. What will be the long term effects of this?

 

The tone of the article was not nice at all. I do not feel we have the luxury of trusting the authorities on issues like vaccination, yet those who go against the generally accepted vaccination publicity, which most people buy hook line and sinker, are treated as if they are putting the whole community at risk for doing their own reasearch and coming to their own conclusions.

 

However, I am not extreme either way, and my delayed- schedule vaccinated kids did not react to vaccines at all. I have travelled to 3rd world countries though and dont discount the benefit of vaccines for many people for whom some of these diseases are deadly because of their poor hygeine and nutrition and lack of access to modern medicine.

[mommaduck]

:iagree: The medical community o longer has the right, in my mind, to ask us to blindly trust them. The pharmaceutical companies have vested interests. There is much corruption in the chain from researchers to manufacturers to public information.

Thats why people need to actually do teh nitty gritty research for themselves.

 

I dont have a problem with vaccinating against polio, which still exists in some parts of the world. Or smallpox. I am not against all vaccinations, but widespread vaccinating against diseases that are not generally life threatening in a hygienic and well nourished western country, just bombards the individual immune system with many diseases it wouldnt normally come across in one lifetime, not to mention the toxins that come along with the vaccination.

 

But one thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this debate concerns me greatly. I regret vaccinating my dd against measles- because since she has not had measles, she cannot pass the immunity to measles through her breastmilk to her breastfed baby. The vaccination does not provide her baby with that protection. The baby wil be completely unprotected in its first months. We are designed to pass on protection to our infants, and this incredible system set up by nature is completely undermined and bypassed by the vaccination system. The baby is thrown out with the bathwater. What will be the long term effects of this?

 

The tone of the article was not nice at all. I do not feel we have the luxury of trusting the authorities on issues like vaccination, yet those who go against the generally accepted vaccination publicity, which most people buy hook line and sinker, are treated as if they are putting the whole community at risk for doing their own reasearch and coming to their own conclusions.

 

However, I am not extreme either way, and my delayed- schedule vaccinated kids did not react to vaccines at all. I have travelled to 3rd world countries though and dont discount the benefit of vaccines for many people for whom some of these diseases are deadly because of their poor hygeine and nutrition and lack of access to modern medicine.

:iagree:Well stated!

[Pine Ledge Academy]

I sorry, but I don't go into the doctor's office assuming he's out to damage my health for his gain or his ease. I trust that he's a dedicated individual who wants to give his patients the healthiest life possible. I also believe that I need to be an educated consumer and be willing to discuss things with him, not go in and assume that I know all the answers. Most of all, I remember that he is human and that medicine is still an art as well as a science. So mistakes will be made.

 

You have brought up many valid concerns. But many of your assumptions, such as they're out to get you, will get in the way of good health care. Discuss your concerns with your doctor. Sometimes he may not see the need for your concern but will still cater to them if he doesn't see any major, negative side effects. But discuss them rationally to gain his confidence, don't go in with a chip on your shoulder.

 

 

:iagree:

[Lolly]

Why do you think that the vast majority of medical doctors believe in the efficacy of vaccination? Do you believe they are misinformed or uneducated or ????

 

I ask this question as a genuinely honest query with no intention of snark.

 

I think they are passing on what they are taught. Basically, they tend to be sheep just like the majority of the human race. We as humans tend to follow the herd.

 

Then, I have the story of my pediatrician and the cp vaccine. It came out when dd was little. I took her in for her well check. Her pediatrician, who has been a friend of dh's family for many years, advised AGAINST giving it. It was a vaccine against a harmless childhood disease mainly made for the benefits of working parents who could not afford to take off time from work to stay home with a sick child for days at a time. The natural immunity she would get would be better, tried and true. Her explanation. Also the main explanation on the printed material she gave me to read up on it. The next year during dd's well check with the same pediatrician, she was aghast because dd had not been vaccinated yet against cp. It was a DEADLY disease. Didn't I know that children died from having cp? :confused: So, what had changed? The pediatric community had decided to back the vaccine. The drug companies had come in and pushed the vaccine hard to the doctors. I seriously don't think that cp itself changed.

 

I have a bil who is a doctor. While in medical school he would come home for visits. He would be telling us some of the marvelous things he had learned. Some of them were just flat out wrong. I only argued one of them with him. Kept my mouth shut on the others because I was not as well versed on them. No way was I right. His instructor had told them xyz. End of discussion. Funnies thing happened, a major periodical carried an article the next month about how xyz, a commonly held belief, was incorrect. Turns out the abc which I had tried to explain to him was correct.

 

Doctors are only correct in matters which they are instructed correctly. The entire medical community has held misbeliefs that have stuck around for decades to centuries before. I'm sure some of todays practices will be found to be wrong in the future.