Gardisil...not just for girls....

[msrift]

I admittedly haven't researched this particular vaccine too closely, but I just wanted to pipe in that it isn't that cervical cancer that might be prevented. There is growing evidence that the upswing in oral and throat cancers, particularly in young non-smokers, is HPV-related. Just another something to keep in mind when considering this for both boys and girls.

[ThreeBlessings]

 

As for the rest of vaccinations...there's actually a movement here among doctors to not allow families to have our state's medicaid if they refuse (ie there's no real medical reason to avoid it) to vaccinate their kids. The guy who first "linked" MMR with autism no longer has a medical license because his study was so un-scientific. Hundreds (thousands?) of studies have been done since his that have disproven his "theory". Again, to each his own, but the data really doesn't support that connection in the least. We KNOW, though, that some kids die of the chicken pox (adults who contract it, too). Some kids and adults die of measles. They die of pertussis. It's not super common, and I had both pertussis and varicella as a kid and thankfully made it through just fine (and have no scars), but I was lucky. My sister has pockmarks all over her face, and again, people do die of these diseases. Again, this is a personal choice, and you gotta do what you gotta do. I just hope everyone considers the data before making that choice.

 

Oh, also someone once asked me if doctors make any money from vaccines- they don't. It's actually illegal (may be state-dependent, but I doubt it). Technically there's a charge for the injection itself as it is a "procedure", but I think it's a minuscule amount (like $10 at most).

 

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

To state that doctors make no money off of vaccines is misleading. A doctor certainly charges for each and every office visit, sometimes quite a ridiculous amount imo. I've lived in several different states and this varies greatly by area. A child vaccinated on schedule is at the doctor's office way more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. So, yes, they are making money off of giving vaccines, quite a sum. For spending less than 5 minutes with my child, and then sending nurses in to do the jabs, I've had doctor's charge over $300. Less than 5 minutes = more than $300 x all day long. Yes, I think they are certainly making money off vaccines.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until they feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[WishboneDawn]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form.

 

Doctors often treat people with weakened immune systems. Those people sit in the same waiting rooms as those who do not vax. For some doctors that's a very real issue that leads them to refuse to see those who refuse vaccinations.

 

It is not always about coercion.

[mommaduck]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

To state that doctors make no money off of vaccines is misleading. A doctor certainly charges for each and every office visit, sometimes quite a ridiculous amount imo. I've lived in several different states and this varies greatly by area. A child vaccinated on schedule is at the doctor's office way more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. So, yes, they are making money off of giving vaccines, quite a sum. For spending less than 5 minutes with my child, and then sending nurses in to do the jabs, I've had doctor's charge over $300. Less than 5 minutes = more than $300 x all day long. Yes, I think they are certainly making money off vaccines.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until the feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

 

Thank you! I've had a doctor refuse to treat (he wasn't "comfortable") my daughter (he only had to remove a small mole from her back due to irregularity). His reason was because she wasn't up to date on her vaccinations. That's because she nearly DIED from a vaccination and was MEDICALLY advised against further vaccinations and I've had the support from other doctors, including her current doctor, in the same practice (!). I had it put on our charts that NONE of our family to ever see him again. If he is that ignorant and brainwashed to the point of not understanding reactions and their devastating effects...then I don't want him as a doctor. He tried to bully me into vaccinating her and the rest of the sibling group, then turned us down when he found out I was as hard headed as he was, had the support of other doctors including his colleague, and was already educated on the issue (including how our lifestyle made vaccination even less of an issue where herd immunity and homeschooling were concerned).

 

I would be beyond PO'd if they took away my children's insurance over it.

[mommaduck]

Doctors often treat people with weakened immune systems. Those people sit in the same waiting rooms as those who do not vax. For some doctors that's a very real issue that leads them to refuse to see those who refuse vaccinations.

 

It is not always about coercion.

 

Some of those same children have weakened immune systems can't be vaccinated BECAUSE of their weakened immune systems!

[ThreeBlessings]

Doctors often treat people with weakened immune systems. Those people sit in the same waiting rooms as those who do not vax. For some doctors that's a very real issue that leads them to refuse to see those who refuse vaccinations.

 

It is not always about coercion.

 

 

Considering all of their adult patients and the doctors and nurses themselves have not had all of the vaccinations they want the children to have, I disagree. They are not coercing their adult patients to have these same vaccines. They continue to see adult patients who have not been vaccinated for Hep B, Hep A, varicella (there are some adults who haven't had it), Pneumococcus, Meningococcus, HPV, flu, Rotavirus, and possibly others. Where is the concern for other patients there? I bet many doctors themselves are not up to date on boosters nor had all of these vaccines. Are they a threat to their patients? I understand each of these diseases needs to be looked at individually- so do children.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[WishboneDawn]

Some of those same children have weakened immune systems can't be vaccinated BECAUSE of their weakened immune systems!

 

Yes, I realized that after posting. :o Although that may be another reason doctors might choose not to accept patients who don't vax by choice.

[WishboneDawn]

Considering all of their adult patients and the doctors and nurses them selves have not had all of the vaccinations they want the children to have, I disagree. They are not coercing their adult patients to have these same vaccines. They continue to see adult patients who have not been vaccinated for Hep B, Hep A, varicella (there are some adults who haven't had it), Pneumococcus, Meningococcus, HPV, flu, Rotavirus, and possibly others. Where is the concern for other patients there? I bet many doctors themselves are not up to date on boosters nor had all of these vaccines. Are they a threat to their patients? I understand each of these diseases needs to be looked at individually- so do children.

 

That's speculation on your part. I was only making the point that coercion is not the only reason a doctor might refuse to accept patients who choose not to vax.

[FaithManor]

Thank you! I've had a doctor refuse to treat (he wasn't "comfortable") my daughter (he only had to remove a small mole from her back due to irregularity). His reason was because she wasn't up to date on her vaccinations. That's because she nearly DIED from a vaccination and was MEDICALLY advised against further vaccinations and I've had the support from other doctors, including her current doctor, in the same practice (!). I had it put on our charts that NONE of our family to ever see him again. If he is that ignorant and brainwashed to the point of not understanding reactions and their devastating effects...then I don't want him as a doctor. He tried to bully me into vaccinating her and the rest of the sibling group, then turned us down when he found out I was as hard headed as he was, had the support of other doctors including his colleague, and was already educated on the issue (including how our lifestyle made vaccination even less of an issue where herd immunity and homeschooling were concerned).

 

I would be beyond PO'd if they took away my children's insurance over it.

 

 

DD's last vaccine - her HEP because she can't work for EMS without it - zero tolerance policy and she's determined to work in emergency medicine so she made this informed choice despite knowing she has had life threatening reactions in the past - was given in the hospital in the emergency room so that they could treat her. 14 hrs. later she was okay.

 

Faith

[trailofsparks]

I know a teenaged girl who has had MULTIPLE health issues after having this vaccine. Her family and various doctors are pretty sure this is what caused it. She was perfectly healthy and into sports before this. It's been a long, hard road for her.

 

Yes. Do a search on YouTube to see other testimonies like this. So, so sad. I agree with you, Tina. Big Pharma = Big Money:mad:

[ThreeBlessings]

That's speculation on your part. I was only making the point that coercion is not the only reason a doctor might refuse to accept patients who choose not to vax.

 

 

it is not speculation to say that adults have not had many of these vaccines. They were not on the recommended schedule when adults over 30 were children. These vaccines are not advised for adults nor given routinely to adults. Might there be a rare few who have had them anyway for one reason or another, possibly. As a matter of course? No. Not speculation, but fact.

[WishboneDawn]

it is not speculation to say that adults have not had many of these vaccines. They were not on the recommended schedule when adults over 30 were children. These vaccines are not advised for adults nor given routinely to adults. Might there be a rare few who have had them anyway for one reason or another, possibly. As a matter of course? No. Not speculation, but fact.

 

You were talking health professionals. Often they do have to make sure they're on top of their vaccines.

[ThreeBlessings]

You were talking health professionals. Often they do have to make sure they're on top of their vaccines.

 

Hep B, yes, in hospital and certain settings. Other vaccines? No. And I wasn't just talking about health care professionals, but also their adult patients.

[TXBeth]

Say your daughter has Factor V, has never known, but gets a bad flu. She's lying around in bed a lot, maybe she's a little dehydrated from her fever. You take her to the doctor, who does a well-child check on top of checking her out for her fever, gives her the HPV shot. This is a girl who is hypercoagulable and has been lying still for days and dehydrated- she's at very high risk for a clot. It's not at all related to the vaccine. But as a parent, you associate the two and report it, cause you don't know she's factor v. And so on. Is that plausible?

 

I just had to reply to this. No, it's not very plausible. What kind of idiot pediatrician is going to give a vaccine to a child with a severe case of the flu - including dehydration and fever?

[Alice]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

To state that doctors make no money off of vaccines is misleading. A doctor certainly charges for each and every office visit, sometimes quite a ridiculous amount imo. I've lived in several different states and this varies greatly by area. A child vaccinated on schedule is at the doctor's office way more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. So, yes, they are making money off of giving vaccines, quite a sum. For spending less than 5 minutes with my child, and then sending nurses in to do the jabs, I've had doctor's charge over $300. Less than 5 minutes = more than $300 x all day long. Yes, I think they are certainly making money off vaccines.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until they feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

 

 

We recently made the decision to not accept patients who do not vaccinate anymore. This was not an easy decision for us. It was not meant to be a form of coercion. It was primarily based on our feeling that we have a responsibility to all our patients. We have kids in our practice that cannot get vaccines either due to medical reasons or age. We have kids in our practice with compromised immune systems for various reasons (transplant patients, cancer patients). We feel that we have a responsibility to ensure that a newborn does not get pertussis or measles in our waiting room (both of which are diseases that are currently being seen in our area). There have been cases of kids getting vaccine-preventable diseases in a doctor's waiting room from an unvaccinated patient.

 

We posted letters in all our rooms when we made this change and gave people several months to find another doctor if they felt they could not vaccinate at all. We are willing to work with people on delayed schedules.

 

It is absolutely legal and within a parent's right to refuse vaccines. But it's also legal and within my right as a physician to choose not to see that patient. I don't think states should deny Medicaid or other insurance to patients who don't vaccinate.

 

I've posted before about the money issue. You can believe what you choose to believe. We make very little to no money on vaccines. Most of the time what we are reimbursed by the insurances is what the cost of the vaccines is. If we wanted to make money we'd only see sick kids as we get paid a whole lot more for every sick visit than well checks. I can charge $150 for taking out a splinter, which takes me about 5 minutes. For a check-up where I might spend 20-30 minutes discussing a variety of issues we charge $120. We get reimbursed less for both and typically the insurers will pay a lot more for procedures or sick visits.

[ThreeBlessings]

We recently made the decision to not accept patients who do not vaccinate anymore. This was not an easy decision for us. It was not meant to be a form of coercion. It was primarily based on our feeling that we have a responsibility to all our patients. We have kids in our practice that cannot get vaccines either due to medical reasons or age. We have kids in our practice with compromised immune systems for various reasons (transplant patients, cancer patients). We feel that we have a responsibility to ensure that a newborn does not get pertussis or measles in our waiting room (both of which are diseases that are currently being seen in our area). There have been cases of kids getting vaccine-preventable diseases in a doctor's waiting room from an unvaccinated patient.

 

We posted letters in all our rooms when we made this change and gave people several months to find another doctor if they felt they could not vaccinate at all. We are willing to work with people on delayed schedules.

 

It is absolutely legal and within a parent's right to refuse vaccines. But it's also legal and within my right as a physician to choose not to see that patient. I don't think states should deny Medicaid or other insurance to patients who don't vaccinate.

 

I've posted before about the money issue. You can believe what you choose to believe. We make very little to no money on vaccines. Most of the time what we are reimbursed by the insurances is what the cost of the vaccines is. If we wanted to make money we'd only see sick kids as we get paid a whole lot more for every sick visit than well checks. I can charge $150 for taking out a splinter, which takes me about 5 minutes. For a check-up where I might spend 20-30 minutes discussing a variety of issues we charge $120. We get reimbursed less for both and typically the insurers will pay a lot more for procedures or sick visits.

 

Your practice sounds nice. I have literally never had a doctor spend more than 10 minutes with one of my children, well visit or sick. :) However, I don't agree with your decision, though I know you are within your rights to make it, and I wish you would rethink. Please think of all of the adults in your employ, in your waiting room, and if you are not a pediatrician-all of your adult patients. Why target children seeking medical care? Have you had all of these vaccines? Are you refusing to have any adults in your employ, in your waiting area, in your office as patients unless they have had every single shot young children are supposed to have? What about all the children who do have the DTaP series and still get pertussis? Do you refuse them care at your office? What about a child who receives the Varicella shot and has breakthrough Chickenpox? Will you refuse them care if a concerned, well meaning parent brings them in your office? Someone who is immuno-comprised could possibly catch a disease from so many scenarios. If you are willing to work with those on delayed schedules how is that not also taking on risk as you see it? I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a political decision to me. You would like to assure the parents with concerns over those not vaccinating that you are doing something, etc. I know I do not know you, nor your specifics, and perhaps I am wrong.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[ThreeBlessings]

I think this is a very important thing for people to discuss. I think it is important whether or not children are being denied medical care for any reason. I do think unvaccinated/undervaccinated children are being targeted regardless that they represent no more real threat to any other person's health than any other person.

 

The value of an insurance card to a child who doctors refuse to care for certainly goes way down. At least it would pay for emergencies and urgent care, but hospitals can not refuse emergency care anyway, insurance or no. I have to ask, how far is this going to be taken? To what length are doctors and the powers that be going to go?

 

eta-I am talking exclusively about the population and risks in the US. My children and the children being discussed and the doctors, etc, in the US.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[Alice]

Your practice sounds nice. I have literally never had a doctor spend more than 10 minutes with one of my children, well visit or sick. :) However, I don't agree with your decision, though I know you are within your rights to make it, and I wish you would rethink. Please think of all of the adults in your employ, in your waiting room, and if you are not a pediatrician-all of your adult patients. Why target children seeking medical care? Have you had all of these vaccines? Are you refusing to have any adults in your employ, in your waiting area, in your office as patients unless they have had every single shot young children are supposed to have? What about all the children who do have the DTaP series and still get pertussis? Do you refuse them care at your office? What about a child who receives the Varicella shot and has breakthrough Chickenpox? Will you refuse them care if a concerned, well meaning parent brings them in your office? Someone who is immuno-comprised could possibly catch a disease from so many scenarios. If you are willing to work with those on delayed schedules how is that not also taking on risk as you see it? I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a political decision to me. You would like to assure the parents with concerns over those not vaccinating that you are doing something, etc. I know I do not know you, nor your specifics, and perhaps I am wrong.

 

You are right that we can't control everything. Sure vaccines don't always work, immuno-compromised kids can catch non-vaccine preventable diseases in our waiting rooms, etc. We do try and protect the kids we can in other ways (the boy in our practice with a double lung transplant comes in after hours, kids who we suspect have chicken-pox are told to check in right away and then put in a room right away). However, one risk we can control is to not have patients who are making the choice not to vaccinate at all.

 

The delayed schedule decision was because we do want to work with families. Ideally to us, people would not choose delayed schedules but we also wanted to try and reach a reasonable compromise. We stated our policy as saying that we would accept those on a "reasonable schedule". We purposefully kept this vague as I do believe all kids are different and what might be reasonable for one patient might not for another.

 

We "target" children because that's who we see. We don't have adult patients. I guess it would make sense scientifically to require all the parents of our patients have the recent pertussis booster. However, that isn't very realistic. It's much more likely that we'll have a sick kid in our waiting room than their sick parent (the kids are brought there because they are sick, the parents might happen to be there but won't come in on purpose sick). Yes, it's not scientifically pure but medicine is messy. We're trying to craft a policy that we feel comfortable with but that also is one that works for the majority of our families.

 

I have had all the vaccinations approved for my age (in addition to many others for travel overseas). We ask our staff to get flu shots and to all get the recent pertussis booster.

 

Interestingly, we have had many parents thank us for making this new policy. We have had only one that I am aware of that will likely not come back. The Mom and I had a good discussion, I explained the policy, she explained her reasons. I would guess she will not return as I do not think she will choose to vaccinate at all. We actually had very very few patients in our practice who don't vaccinate at all before this policy, we have many who are on delayed schedules. We are also in an area where we have the luxury of knowing that there are other doctors who have a different policy and so the kids can get health care. I'm not sure we'd make the same decision if we were in a small town where we were the only choice.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Alice

[ThreeBlessings]

You are right that we can't control everything. Sure vaccines don't always work, immuno-compromised kids can catch non-vaccine preventable diseases in our waiting rooms, etc. We do try and protect the kids we can in other ways (the boy in our practice with a double lung transplant comes in after hours, kids who we suspect have chicken-pox are told to check in right away and then put in a room right away). However, one risk we can control is to not have patients who are making the choice not to vaccinate at all.

 

The delayed schedule decision was because we do want to work with families. Ideally to us, people would not choose delayed schedules but we also wanted to try and reach a reasonable compromise. We stated our policy as saying that we would accept those on a "reasonable schedule". We purposefully kept this vague as I do believe all kids are different and what might be reasonable for one patient might not for another.

 

We "target" children because that's who we see. We don't have adult patients. I guess it would make sense scientifically to require all the parents of our patients have the recent pertussis booster. However, that isn't very realistic. It's much more likely that we'll have a sick kid in our waiting room than their sick parent (the kids are brought there because they are sick, the parents might happen to be there but won't come in on purpose sick). Yes, it's not scientifically pure but medicine is messy. We're trying to craft a policy that we feel comfortable with but that also is one that works for the majority of our families.

 

I have had all the vaccinations approved for my age (in addition to many others for travel overseas). We ask our staff to get flu shots and to all get the recent pertussis booster.

 

Interestingly, we have had many parents thank us for making this new policy. We have had only one that I am aware of that will likely not come back. The Mom and I had a good discussion, I explained the policy, she explained her reasons. I would guess she will not return as I do not think she will choose to vaccinate at all. We actually had very very few patients in our practice who don't vaccinate at all before this policy, we have many who are on delayed schedules. We are also in an area where we have the luxury of knowing that there are other doctors who have a different policy and so the kids can get health care. I'm not sure we'd make the same decision if we were in a small town where we were the only choice.

 

Thank you for replying and answering. :) I understand, to an extent, your decision. I am glad that you are currently accepting patients with delayed scheduling and hope you continue doing so. Parents deserve the right to choose. This isn't the case at all in my area. It is all precisely to schedule or catch up schedule if a child misses, or you will not be seen. Even family doctors are taking this road. You and I both know the kids are getting vaccines you and I and the general adult population will never get and for us it is OKAY. We would not be refused a place as patient in a medical practice because of it. I can't help but shake my head at refusing a child medical care.

 

 

eta: Also I'd speculate that in two years time you will see other doctors in your area following your precedence, possibly even taking a harder line with it like doctors in my area.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[ThreeBlessings]

Alice- I did want to say that while I understand you don't feel you are being coercive, I disagree. You only kicked one patient out of the practice, but allowed parents who agreed to stay. I wonder what they would say if you asked them whether or not they felt coerced to comply lest they be kicked out as well. I'm guessing from your post that you will not allow selective vaccinating, just delayed? While you may not have meant your new policy as coercion I think it is.

[Alice]

Alice- I did want to say that while I understand you don't feel you are being coercive, I disagree. You only kicked one patient out of the practice, but allowed parents who agreed to stay. I wonder what they would say if you asked them whether or not they felt coerced to comply lest they be kicked out as well. I'm guessing from your post that you will not allow selective vaccinating, just delayed? While you may not have meant your new policy as coercion I think it is.

 

I understand your point. I haven't personally seen anyone who changed their mind over this policy. Whether or not there were parents who would have chosen not to vaccinate but now are I can't know for sure. But as I said before, there are many doctors in our area who do accept patient who don't vaccinate. That might change in the future, but it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. We also would not "kick anyone out" right away but would give everyone a grace period while they considered vaccines and their options. For example, I saw someone who chose not to vaccinate. I told her that we'd need to see her start on some kind of schedule by the next check-up (3 months in the future). In the meantime we'd see the kids. We didn't ask that they all be up to date immediately, just that we move in that direction.

 

As far as selective vs. delayed goes, that falls into the vague "reasonable" part of the policy. If someone refuses Hep B completely, I'm fine with that as Hep B isn't going to be transmitted in our waiting room. If someone refuses MMR completely I have a problem with that as we are currently seeing outbreaks of measles in our area. If someone delays but is on some kind of schedule we can work together. If someone delays but says "I'll get all the shots one day when they are older" we wouldn't consider that reasonable. It's not perfect but it's what we could all agree on.

 

I can tell this is a hot button topic for you but I appreciate your tone and the good discussion.

[ScoutTN]

Pharmaceutical companies are becoming predators :glare:

 

Wrong verb tense, I'm afraid. It happened long ago. They have no real accountablility, since the CDC and the Federal Gov't in general cover their backs.

 

They are a mixed blessing, for sure!

I am glad to have vax (We do most of them, but slower as in the schedule in The Vaccine Book.). But the research needs to be much better and the results more public.

[mommaduck]

DD's last vaccine - her HEP because she can't work for EMS without it - zero tolerance policy and she's determined to work in emergency medicine so she made this informed choice despite knowing she has had life threatening reactions in the past - was given in the hospital in the emergency room so that they could treat her. 14 hrs. later she was okay.

 

Faith

 

I've spoken with my daughter, in fact with all my children, about the issue. She's been told that if she chooses to go into healthcare, she may be faced with this decision. I've advised her to consider the issue, that she should look at minimal and selectively vaccinating, (being in an emergency room is a great idea), and that by then she would be an adult with possibly a better tolerance for it AND it would be HER decision. I've told my other children (the older ones that understand and will face this) that they should be aware to consider the same possibilities with decision such as going to Mexico to build houses (something a group here does), etc. But then, that is when they are older, bigger, not infants, selective, and a personal decision to weigh risk and benefit with choices.

[Medstudent]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

To state that doctors make no money off of vaccines is misleading. A doctor certainly charges for each and every office visit, sometimes quite a ridiculous amount imo. I've lived in several different states and this varies greatly by area. A child vaccinated on schedule is at the doctor's office way more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. So, yes, they are making money off of giving vaccines, quite a sum. For spending less than 5 minutes with my child, and then sending nurses in to do the jabs, I've had doctor's charge over $300. Less than 5 minutes = more than $300 x all day long. Yes, I think they are certainly making money off vaccines.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until they feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

 

 

The argument is actually this: doctors recommend vaccines. They also recommend healthy eating, recommend certain medications for diseases, surgeries, whatever. Doctors make recommendations to parents because kids can't make these decisions on their own. The moment you decide not to vaccinate your kids and don't have a good, evidence-based reason, your relationship with your doctor is effectively tainted. If I tell you that this shot is important for this reason and there's very good data for it, and you still refuse to heed my recommendations because of a non-scientific reason, we're officially no longer speaking the same language. I might as well stop talking. I don't know if you'll decide not to give antibiotics to your child when he has strep, or if you'll decide not to have the appendectomy in the middle of acute appendicitis. If you don't believe me and my data now, how can I know you'll believe me later? Most of the private practice pediatricians I know have this policy- unless there's a very good medical reason not to vaccinate your kids, and if you've already been given all the relevant, peer-reviewed data, if you still refuse vaccines, you can find another doctor.

 

The argument for medicaid is a somewhat different one. The short of it is, if I'm paying taxes and effectively paying for your child's medical care, I shouldn't have to subject my newborn to your unvaccinated children. Is that fair? Probably not. But few things about non-socialized medicine are fair. Medicaid patients are examined by med students and residents, they get the generic prescriptions and can't have elective surgeries. As long as we have a privatized medical system, this is the way it is. Many pediatricians feel that because not vaccinating your kids (unless there's a very good medical reason) prevents herd immunity, and effectively puts other kids at risk, the medicaid patients should not have the "privilege" of making that choice. ps- this is not my opinion, I'm just saying what I've heard around the block.

 

As for making money- the places I've been to only give shots during normal well-child checks, they don't set up a whole entire new appointment for them. If they set up a whole appointment and charge you for a consultation then yes, I think that's dishonest. If you follow the AAP guidelines, that shouldn't happen because you should be seeing the kids at those times for well-child exams anyway. That gets charged whether you have a shot or not.

 

And sorry for the als mishap, i thought someone was talking about the Guillain-Barre "risk", since people confuse Lou Gehrig with Guillain Barre all the time.

[Medstudent]

I just had to reply to this. No, it's not very plausible. What kind of idiot pediatrician is going to give a vaccine to a child with a severe case of the flu - including dehydration and fever?

 

We (a tertiary care center) do it all the time, many times a day. Most vaccines are not live bugs, they don't cause any symptoms of illness besides a sore arm.

[kalanamak]

Hep B, yes, in hospital and certain settings. Other vaccines? No. And I wasn't just talking about health care professionals, but also their adult patients.

 

Why Hep B yes? If I get Hep B I'm not likely to pass it on. MMR is what is required where I work (or proof of titer). Now they want chicken pox, but not to require vax but to move the un-immune from shingles patients. Hep B is not even asked about. They also give out feebie flu shots.

[TXBeth]

We (a tertiary care center) do it all the time, many times a day. Most vaccines are not live bugs, they don't cause any symptoms of illness besides a sore arm.

 

Pretty much every vaccine information sheet I have ever read said that if a child was sick (more than just a mild cold/low fever), you should wait to give the vaccine until they recover. Even the vaccines that are not live rely on the immune system in order to do their job.

[Medstudent]

Pretty much every vaccine information sheet I have ever read said that if a child was sick (more than just a mild cold/low fever), you should wait to give the vaccine until they recover. Even the vaccines that are not live rely on the immune system in order to do their job.

 

The vast majority of patients we get in clinic (not the hospital, obviously) have what would be considered a "mild" cold so we're comfortable with giving them the shots. Just because you're staying in bed and not drinking much water, it doesn't mean you're super sick.

[mommaduck]

Pretty much every vaccine information sheet I have ever read said that if a child was sick (more than just a mild cold/low fever), you should wait to give the vaccine until they recover. Even the vaccines that are not live rely on the immune system in order to do their job.

 

I believe even the literature on these vaccines state that they are NOT to be given to sick children, particularly if they have the flu. Medstudent, I'd be raising Cain with the place that you are doing this at. Just because it's done, doesn't mean it's supposed to be done or that it is right to do it.

[8circles]

I also wanted to make a point about Factor V Leiden: that's kind of what I was saying before. Clotting can occur for a huge variety of reasons, including genetic mutations such as Factor V (there's a whole host of others, too, that are less common) that the vast majority of people have no idea they have. Say your daughter has Factor V, has never known, but gets a bad flu. She's lying around in bed a lot, maybe she's a little dehydrated from her fever. You take her to the doctor, who does a well-child check on top of checking her out for her fever, gives her the HPV shot. This is a girl who is hypercoagulable and has been lying still for days and dehydrated- she's at very high risk for a clot. It's not at all related to the vaccine. But as a parent, you associate the two and report it, cause you don't know she's factor v. And so on. Is that plausible?

 

The vast majority of patients we get in clinic (not the hospital, obviously) have what would be considered a "mild" cold so we're comfortable with giving them the shots. Just because you're staying in bed and not drinking much water, it doesn't mean you're super sick.

 

Your two examples are not the same. The first example IMO would fall into too sick to receive the vax.

[ThreeBlessings]

Why Hep B yes? If I get Hep B I'm not likely to pass it on. MMR is what is required where I work (or proof of titer). Now they want chicken pox, but not to require vax but to move the un-immune from shingles patients. Hep B is not even asked about. They also give out feebie flu shots.

 

From what I've been told by medical professionals working in a hospital setting, if you're going to be dealing with blood Hep B is required. Honestly I haven't entered the 'vaccine debate' for about three years now, so I'm obviously out of the loop when it comes to what doctor's offices are requiring of their workers these days. If they are now requiring more vaccines for employees I only think its right given their requirements on children. I just hope the doctors themselves are keeping up with their boosters as well. I've always thought most didn't. Still they will not be getting all of the shots the children are supposed to get. Do you work with the elderly?

Edited September 2, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[ThreeBlessings]

I understand your point. I haven't personally seen anyone who changed their mind over this policy. Whether or not there were parents who would have chosen not to vaccinate but now are I can't know for sure. But as I said before, there are many doctors in our area who do accept patient who don't vaccinate. That might change in the future, but it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. We also would not "kick anyone out" right away but would give everyone a grace period while they considered vaccines and their options. For example, I saw someone who chose not to vaccinate. I told her that we'd need to see her start on some kind of schedule by the next check-up (3 months in the future). In the meantime we'd see the kids. We didn't ask that they all be up to date immediately, just that we move in that direction.

 

As far as selective vs. delayed goes, that falls into the vague "reasonable" part of the policy. If someone refuses Hep B completely, I'm fine with that as Hep B isn't going to be transmitted in our waiting room. If someone refuses MMR completely I have a problem with that as we are currently seeing outbreaks of measles in our area. If someone delays but is on some kind of schedule we can work together. If someone delays but says "I'll get all the shots one day when they are older" we wouldn't consider that reasonable. It's not perfect but it's what we could all agree on.

 

I can tell this is a hot button topic for you but I appreciate your tone and the good discussion.

 

Yes, it is a hot button topic. Likely due to the current climate surrounding the issue in my area. There's no room for discussion or debate here. I likewise appreciate your respectful conversation and willingness to answer questions. It is refreshing.

[*~Tina~*]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until they feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

 

:iagree:

 

This is no different than a physician deciding he will no longer treat "sick" patients because they may potentially pass their ailment or germs on to his "well" patients. :001_huh:

 

It is coercion. I absolutely agree and find it abhorrent regardless of how they try to justify such policies.

[*~Tina~*]

You're just following me around now looking for bits of my wisdom to agree with. :D

 

You are so funny :lol:

 

are your sons still minors??? They can NOT give ANY vaccine to your child before you sign for it. I'd be ALL over that like a wet suit!

 

:iagree:

 

Yes. Do a search on YouTube to see other testimonies like this. So, so sad. I agree with you, Tina. Big Pharma = Big Money:mad:

 

It is very sad on many levels. :(

[StephanieZ]

FWIW, my BFF is a pediatrician who works in hospitals (in-patient, ER, newborns, etc). She gets lots of vaccine boosters.

 

She's the one who diagnosed MY whooping cough a couple winters ago, and she gets pertussis boosters herself pretty regularly. I forget what it was, maybe every 10 years? Maybe 5. I know she gets various vaccine boosters on a regular schedule, as well as all the flu shots, etc. every year.

 

I get the distinct impression from her that her vaccination intervals are according to some hospital/industry standards, and not something she just makes up for herself as she goes along, so I am guessing that increased vaccination intervals is standard among medical professionals.

[ThreeBlessings]

The argument is actually this: doctors recommend vaccines. They also recommend healthy eating, recommend certain medications for diseases, surgeries, whatever. Doctors make recommendations to parents because kids can't make these decisions on their own. The moment you decide not to vaccinate your kids and don't have a good, evidence-based reason, your relationship with your doctor is effectively tainted. If I tell you that this shot is important for this reason and there's very good data for it, and you still refuse to heed my recommendations because of a non-scientific reason, we're officially no longer speaking the same language. I might as well stop talking. I don't know if you'll decide not to give antibiotics to your child when he has strep, or if you'll decide not to have the appendectomy in the middle of acute appendicitis. If you don't believe me and my data now, how can I know you'll believe me later? Most of the private practice pediatricians I know have this policy- unless there's a very good medical reason not to vaccinate your kids, and if you've already been given all the relevant, peer-reviewed data, if you still refuse vaccines, you can find another doctor.

 

The argument for medicaid is a somewhat different one. The short of it is, if I'm paying taxes and effectively paying for your child's medical care, I shouldn't have to subject my newborn to your unvaccinated children. Is that fair? Probably not. But few things about non-socialized medicine are fair. Medicaid patients are examined by med students and residents, they get the generic prescriptions and can't have elective surgeries. As long as we have a privatized medical system, this is the way it is. Many pediatricians feel that because not vaccinating your kids (unless there's a very good medical reason) prevents herd immunity, and effectively puts other kids at risk, the medicaid patients should not have the "privilege" of making that choice. ps- this is not my opinion, I'm just saying what I've heard around the block.

 

As for making money- the places I've been to only give shots during normal well-child checks, they don't set up a whole entire new appointment for them. If they set up a whole appointment and charge you for a consultation then yes, I think that's dishonest. If you follow the AAP guidelines, that shouldn't happen because you should be seeing the kids at those times for well-child exams anyway. That gets charged whether you have a shot or not.

 

And sorry for the als mishap, i thought someone was talking about the Guillain-Barre "risk", since people confuse Lou Gehrig with Guillain Barre all the time.

 

 

There is so much in this post that bothers me. I'm not naive when it comes to the beliefs and attitudes of others, but it is amazing to me how other people think sometimes. I'm sure they would be just as baffled by me.

 

Doctors are wrong sometimes just the same as the rest of us. Any doctor that has gone past the point of believing patients should give informed consent and into a state where they believe a patient should do as they say just because they say is dangerous, in my opinion. Science changes from day to day. It is Science, that is the nature of Science. Recommendations change frequently. Drugs can and do hurt people. Doctors have caused many, many deaths and injuries. This is a fact. Do doctors help people? Yes. Do drugs help people? Yes. Are doctors always right in their advice or recommendations? No. Do the benefits of a drug always outweigh the risks for an individual patient? No. The patient and their family have to live with the consequences of whatever medical decision is made, NOT the doctor. It is not a doctors job to make decisions for their patients. It is their job to inform patients of available treatments and prophylactics, their risks and benefits, and to educate them about any existing conditions they have. It is the patients job to decide and weigh the risks and benefits to the individual and give informed consent.

 

Regarding the medicaid children, you nor any single doctor is 'effectively paying for their medical care'. Every working citizen taxed by the US pays taxes, including the majority of parents who have children on medicaid. You are talking about hard working Americans who pay taxes but are not paid a living wage who need help paying increasingly ridiculous insurance and medical bills for their children. Their taxes also pay for medicaid. That parent raises their child, reads to them, feeds them, bathes them, rocks them, cleans their wounds, etc, etc, etc. It is their child, not the doctors! Just because a doctor pays taxes does not mean they have the right to make medical decisions for someone's child. Will they be the ones to deal with any negative consequences the medical care may have? No. Will they be the one to provide daily care for the child should harm come to him? No. If this argument held real weight then I suppose all of us tax paying citizens who pay for public school should feel we have the right to decide what the public school children are learning and using as curriculum each day. I highly doubt every doctor can afford to send their children to private school. What about aid for college? How many doctors would have been able to afford their college education which allowed them to be doctors without financial aid provided by others' tax dollars? Think about all of the things our tax money goes towards. Can and should each tax paying citizen have equal say and control in the minute details of how it is being spent? Or perhaps just the citizens in a certain tax bracket? Surely if one is paying more taxes they should have more say, more control? No matter doctors are in a higher tax bracket because of the ridiculously high prices for medical care in the US. No matter it is all of the citizens paying for insurance and paying taxes that allow medicaid insurance that fund the doctors being in that tax bracket. The money doesn't just materialize in their pockets. It comes from the hands of hard working Americans.

Edited September 2, 2011 by ThreeBlessings

[mommaduck]

Medstudent, I have a form in my files that states that I disagree with certain vaccinations, that I'm informed of possible reactions, etc. However, this form states that the doctor is insisting upon these vaccinations and that I will agree to the vaccinations IF the doctor signs the form agreeing to pay for all medical and special needs expenses for the lifespan of my child should my child negatively react to the vaccinations. If a doctor is THAT confident in the safety of vaccinations, even ones where a child or a sibling has reacted in the past, then that doctor should have no problem signing the form, right? No doctor is stupid enough to sign it. I'm not stupid enough to blindly vaccinate my children, particularly when we've already nearly lost one to a vaccination.

[*~Tina~*]

Medstudent, I have a form in my files that states that I disagree with certain vaccinations, that I'm informed of possible reactions, etc. However, this form states that the doctor is insisting upon these vaccinations and that I will agree to the vaccinations IF the doctor signs the form agreeing to pay for all medical and special needs expenses for the lifespan of my child should my child negatively react to the vaccinations. If a doctor is THAT confident in the safety of vaccinations, even ones where a child or a sibling has reacted in the past, then that doctor should have no problem signing the form, right? No doctor is stupid enough to sign it. I'm not stupid enough to blindly vaccinate my children, particularly when we've already nearly lost one to a vaccination.

 

:hurray:

 

Yes, it is ironic how they will verbally assure you of the efficacy and safety without hesistation, but ask for a signature and liability acceptance to back it up....ha!!

 

ha..ha..ha..ha...exit stage left...laughing madly all they way....

[RanchGirl]

The argument is actually this: doctors recommend vaccines. They also recommend healthy eating, recommend certain medications for diseases, surgeries, whatever. Doctors make recommendations to parents because kids can't make these decisions on their own. The moment you decide not to vaccinate your kids and don't have a good, evidence-based reason, your relationship with your doctor is effectively tainted. If I tell you that this shot is important for this reason and there's very good data for it, and you still refuse to heed my recommendations because of a non-scientific reason, we're officially no longer speaking the same language. I might as well stop talking. I don't know if you'll decide not to give antibiotics to your child when he has strep, or if you'll decide not to have the appendectomy in the middle of acute appendicitis. If you don't believe me and my data now, how can I know you'll believe me later? Most of the private practice pediatricians I know have this policy- unless there's a very good medical reason not to vaccinate your kids, and if you've already been given all the relevant, peer-reviewed data, if you still refuse vaccines, you can find another doctor.

 

The argument for medicaid is a somewhat different one. The short of it is, if I'm paying taxes and effectively paying for your child's medical care, I shouldn't have to subject my newborn to your unvaccinated children. Is that fair? Probably not. But few things about non-socialized medicine are fair. Medicaid patients are examined by med students and residents, they get the generic prescriptions and can't have elective surgeries. As long as we have a privatized medical system, this is the way it is. Many pediatricians feel that because not vaccinating your kids (unless there's a very good medical reason) prevents herd immunity, and effectively puts other kids at risk, the medicaid patients should not have the "privilege" of making that choice. ps- this is not my opinion, I'm just saying what I've heard around the block.

 

As for making money- the places I've been to only give shots during normal well-child checks, they don't set up a whole entire new appointment for them. If they set up a whole appointment and charge you for a consultation then yes, I think that's dishonest. If you follow the AAP guidelines, that shouldn't happen because you should be seeing the kids at those times for well-child exams anyway. That gets charged whether you have a shot or not.

 

And sorry for the als mishap, i thought someone was talking about the Guillain-Barre "risk", since people confuse Lou Gehrig with Guillain Barre all the time.

 

I think there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. What you are describing sounds like "my way or the highway." Apparently if I am a patient in your practice, I need to follow all of your advice without question, or I don't continue to have the privilege of being your patient. I hope you never make mistakes in this scenario as that is a heavy burden of responsibility. Final authority = ultimate responsibility.

 

The opposite viewpoint would be that a doctor is providing a service: his or her medical expertise. The patient is the customer, basically paying for a consultant. It could be a short term or long term relationship with said consultant, depending on how I perceive the consultant's expertise and value. But regardless, I believe that I still make the final decisions. I might ask two different doctors and get two different opinions. In some cases, I might ask 4 doctors, read a few books and research studies, consult a patient support group for others' experiences, etc. But after I get those opinions from various sources, the final decision is mine. As is the responsibility. If I or my child does not get well or becomes injured because of decisions I do or don't make, I am the one who has to deal with the aftermath.

 

I really have no respect for individuals, whatever the initials behind their name, that decide they get to make all decisions for other people. Typically, they are also not willing to take any responsibility when those decisions go awry.

 

Especially in the case of Gardasil, where there is clearly valid reason for caution.

Edited September 2, 2011 by RanchGirl
typo

[regentrude]

We (a tertiary care center) do it all the time, many times a day. Most vaccines are not live bugs, they don't cause any symptoms of illness besides a sore arm.

 

You give vaccines to severly ill with the flu patients all the time???

Why then is it recommended NOT to receive vaccines if you are sick? I was under the impression that , if the immune system is already busy fighting an acute infection, it either does not make enough antibodies to the vaccine (and thus renders the vaccine ineffective) or it does not fully focus on the illness and thus prolongs or increases severity.

All the recommendations I have been given are NOT to vaccinate an acutely sick child. Our ped will not vacc if the patient runs a fever.

I am surprised to hear that you do.

[FaithManor]

I think there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. What you are describing sounds like "my way or the highway." Apparently if I am a patient in your practice, I need to follow all of your advice without question, or I don't continue to have the privilege of being your patient. I hope you never make mistakes in this scenario as that is a heavy burden of responsibility. Final authority = ultimate responsibility.

 

The opposite viewpoint would be that a doctor is providing a service, his or her medical expertise. The patient is the customer, basically paying for a consultant. It could be a short term or long term relationship with said consultant, depending on how I perceive the consultant's expertise and value. But regardless, I believe that I still make the final decisions. I might ask two different doctors and get two different opinions. In some cases, I might ask 4 doctors, read a few books and research studies, consult a patient support group for others' experiences, etc. But after I get those opinions from various sources, the final decision is mine. As is the responsibility. If I or my child becomes does not get well or becomes injured because of decisions I do or don't make, I am the one who has to deal with the aftermath.

 

I really have no respect for individuals, whatever the initials behind their name, that decide they get to make all decisions for other people. Typically, they are also not willing to take any responsibility when those decisions go awry.

 

Especially in the case of Gardasil, where there is clearly valid reason for caution.

 

APPLAUSE!

 

Faith

[*~Tina~*]

I think there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. What you are describing sounds like "my way or the highway." Apparently if I am a patient in your practice, I need to follow all of your advice without question, or I don't continue to have the privilege of being your patient. I hope you never make mistakes in this scenario as that is a heavy burden of responsibility. Final authority = ultimate responsibility.

 

The opposite viewpoint would be that a doctor is providing a service, his or her medical expertise. The patient is the customer, basically paying for a consultant. It could be a short term or long term relationship with said consultant, depending on how I perceive the consultant's expertise and value. But regardless, I believe that I still make the final decisions. I might ask two different doctors and get two different opinions. In some cases, I might ask 4 doctors, read a few books and research studies, consult a patient support group for others' experiences, etc. But after I get those opinions from various sources, the final decision is mine. As is the responsibility. If I or my child becomes does not get well or becomes injured because of decisions I do or don't make, I am the one who has to deal with the aftermath.

 

I really have no respect for individuals, whatever the initials behind their name, that decide they get to make all decisions for other people. Typically, they are also not willing to take any responsibility when those decisions go awry.

 

Especially in the case of Gardasil, where there is clearly valid reason for caution.

 

I second the applause!! :hurray:

 

Very well said. :thumbup:

[ValRN]

I took my 3 dc for their wellness exams today, and the family practitioner suggested this vaccine for my ds (17 and 14) and dd (11). None of my dc are sexually active yet - they do not even date. I'm not saying that they will remain abstinent until marriage, but at this time they've chosen to be (thank God).

 

I declined this vaccine for dc based on the fact that it is too new and not enough long-term info has been compiled yet.

 

I also am selective when it comes to vaccines. I declined the chicken pox vaccine for dc when it first came out. I was still waiting on "time" but my dh took middle dc to an appointment and the doctor was able to slip it in on my unsuspecting (and less cautious) husband. :eek:

 

Anyway. I enjoyed reading the posts.

[LittleIzumi]

are your sons still minors??? They can NOT give ANY vaccine to your child before you sign for it. I'd be ALL over that like a wet suit!

 

Happened to us, too. After I signed the official "DO NOT GIVE THE VACCINE" papers. :glare::glare::glare: They didn't even check the paperwork, just processed her per routine.

 

The argument is actually this: doctors recommend vaccines. They also recommend healthy eating, recommend certain medications for diseases, surgeries, whatever.

 

So, do you refuse to see people who eat McDonald's? :001_huh:

 

I think there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. What you are describing sounds like "my way or the highway." Apparently if I am a patient in your practice, I need to follow all of your advice without question, or I don't continue to have the privilege of being your patient. I hope you never make mistakes in this scenario as that is a heavy burden of responsibility. Final authority = ultimate responsibility.

 

The opposite viewpoint would be that a doctor is providing a service: his or her medical expertise. The patient is the customer, basically paying for a consultant. It could be a short term or long term relationship with said consultant, depending on how I perceive the consultant's expertise and value. But regardless, I believe that I still make the final decisions. I might ask two different doctors and get two different opinions. In some cases, I might ask 4 doctors, read a few books and research studies, consult a patient support group for others' experiences, etc. But after I get those opinions from various sources, the final decision is mine. As is the responsibility. If I or my child does not get well or becomes injured because of decisions I do or don't make, I am the one who has to deal with the aftermath.

 

I really have no respect for individuals, whatever the initials behind their name, that decide they get to make all decisions for other people. Typically, they are also not willing to take any responsibility when those decisions go awry.

 

Especially in the case of Gardasil, where there is clearly valid reason for caution.

 

:party: :iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Denise in Florida]

Didn't read all the posts, sorry. I will try to catch up.

 

I checked out Gardisil a few years ago, my girls will not be getting this vaccine. I think the rush to mandatory status was more about profits and politics then about health. As for the vaccine itself, I think it is up to each family, I would not argue if someone wanted to do it. I will just wait for a little longer track record before jumping on that wagon.

[Denise in Florida]

Is it? To me not, honestly.

I should preface this by saying that I am pro-vaccines in general and that I have given my kids all the recommended vaccines so far - except for THIS one! I am holding off until it is better studied. Somehow the huge advertisement campaigns do not make me feel more confident.

 

68 kids have died following the vaccine, some girls developed ALS.

All that for a vaccine that is effective against some viruses responsible for a cancer that is easily detected in regular screening and has a relatively good prognosis if caught early.

 

This is me exactly. Not anti-vaccines, just a little leary of the rush to market and rush to mandatory.

 

It needs more track record.

[Catwoman]

I started reading this thread, and it started to seem strangely familiar... because it was!

 

I wish people would start new threads, rather than resurrecting old ones, and if they want to reference the original (old) thread, they could just provide a link to it in their post.

 

I'm not trying to be the Forum Police or anything, but in the case of a L-O-N-G thread like this, it would be much easier to have just started a new thread, because many of us (OK, maybe only the dopey ones like me :tongue_smilie:) may end up unnecessarily reading pages of a thread we'd already read a year ago.

[Bear23]

I started reading this thread, and it started to seem strangely familiar... because it was!

 

I wish people would start new threads, rather than resurrecting old ones, and if they want to reference the original (old) thread, they could just provide a link to it in their post.

 

I'm not trying to be the Forum Police or anything, but in the case of a L-O-N-G thread like this, it would be much easier to have just started a new thread, because many of us (OK, maybe only the dopey ones like me :tongue_smilie:) may end up unnecessarily reading pages of a thread we'd already read a year ago.

 

:iagree:

[celticmom]

I find the trend among doctors to refuse care for children, because their parents have exercised their legal right to choose which vaccines and when, very disturbing. It is coercion in a horrible form. For states to deny insurance would certainly be a far cry worse. It is legal to weigh the benefits/risks of vaccines for your child and choose. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to consider taking away that right. I find it immoral and unconstitutional to coerce parents in this manner to vaccinate their children with every vaccine on the schedule in the time frame of the 'recommended' schedule and every vaccine they will be adding to the schedule in the future.

 

To state that doctors make no money off of vaccines is misleading. A doctor certainly charges for each and every office visit, sometimes quite a ridiculous amount imo. I've lived in several different states and this varies greatly by area. A child vaccinated on schedule is at the doctor's office way more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. So, yes, they are making money off of giving vaccines, quite a sum. For spending less than 5 minutes with my child, and then sending nurses in to do the jabs, I've had doctor's charge over $300. Less than 5 minutes = more than $300 x all day long. Yes, I think they are certainly making money off vaccines.

 

No matter how I feel about vaccines, or what I am choosing for my family in regards to vaccination, I can not get behind the movement to take away a parent's right to choose and I certainly can not get behind the methods of coercion currently being placed on parents who are choosing to select which vaccines they want for their child, or to delay vaccines until they feel comfortable with them, or not choosing vaccinations for their child at all as a conscious decision.

:iagree:I also think that attempting to force people to vaccinate just make them more suspicious of the safety of the vaccines.

[Parrothead]

I started reading this thread, and it started to seem strangely familiar... because it was!

 

I wish people would start new threads, rather than resurrecting old ones, and if they want to reference the original (old) thread, they could just provide a link to it in their post.

 

I'm not trying to be the Forum Police or anything, but in the case of a L-O-N-G thread like this, it would be much easier to have just started a new thread, because many of us (OK, maybe only the dopey ones like me :tongue_smilie:) may end up unnecessarily reading pages of a thread we'd already read a year ago.

I'd just happened to catch this one. I've been here all day vegging out due to illness. It had 14 pages way too fast. :lol:

 

Often times I get sucked into about 50 posts before realizing it.