If the kid get sick, he infects everyone else. If the doctors treat him before it spreads, he doesn't infect everyone else. We cannot deny treatment to ANY patient, no matter how stupid them or their parents are. It's in the best interest of the general public to treat the child.
▼
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
You know he can get others sick without getting sick himself right
Being not vaccinated doesn't make you a carrier, it makes whoever decided not to vaccinate stupid.
If you are a carrier, you can spread it. You do not have to be sick to be a carrier, but you do need to at least be a carrier to spread it.
▼
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Guys, if you want to keep arguing, bring it to the chat, stop blowing up people's posts
Healthcare providers have an ethical obligation to treat those in need of services, or to refer them to one who can. This means in emergency (meaning current illness) they have to provide care. This does not mean we have to carry that patient on our caseload. Furthermore, if other providers are available, we don't have to take a patient for any non-discriminatory reason. If an unvaccinated kid shows up with a broken arm or the measles the dr will treat him/her. This does not mean becoming the primary care provider, e.g. No obligation to give the kid a physical for sports or be the attending after a hospitalization. I'm sure this is all the sign means.
Disclaimer-psychologist not an md (same ethics and standards though)
Everyone acts like seeing a doctor is a right we have, but it's not. Everything is privately funded. Doctors don't owe you a visit. You can fire a doctor and a doctor can fire you. They have a right to refuse service if necessary. There are thousands of other doctors in this world. If you don't like how one practice is run, go to a different one. Simple as that.
Getting vaccinated trains your immune system to fight diseases. If you bring an un-vaccinated child who is 12 into an office where an infant is still going through their cycles of shots they are more prone to getting whatever the un-vaccinated child is carrying.
@sm19 That's a bad argument. What if, because of their lack of vaccination, they get sick? Where will they go? Are we just abandoning the kid, because of dumb parents?
Doctors take an oath to treat everyone. Would you rather have one sick kid on the loose, infecting everyone else? Or would you rather have a briefly sick kid, giving the child less time to infoect everyone else?
Your argument makes no sense.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
You would rather have five kids get the measles than one kid suffer from the flu or some shit
Little Johnny gets the measles
Option 1; little johnny, left without treatment, spreads the measles to children who cannot be vaccinated. Little johnny dies.
Option 2; Little Johnny gets treatment for the measles. He doesn't spread it to anyone, and his parents (hopefully) learn their lesson
I honestly don't know where you are pulling these 5 kids statistics. Do you see my point?
Take this, from an article
If the worry is other children’s being exposed in the waiting room, he said, doctors could focus on measures to keep sick kids separate, or out of the waiting room until a doctor is available. “And if your concern is that these infected kids are going to go out and infect other kids — if you fire them from your practice, there would be more unimmunized kids in the world,” he said, since the hope is that if the families stay in the practice, eventually they may be persuaded. “Most people don’t say, nobody should see these kids; they just say, my practice shouldn’t see these kids. But if everybody said it, the world would be a much worse place.”
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
It's kinda late for me to argue, so I don't really wanna do this, but if you must, don't blow up a post, take it to the argument chat. And also, there's nothing wrong about caring about the health of a majority of your patients instead of just one
You don't seem to understand. Johnny is a greater threat to the other children if left untreated. It's in the best interest of the majority to trear Johnny.
I like to think that this is a debate rather than an argument.
Schools are also starting to tell kids they can't attend if they're not vaccinated. It's called social pressure...a society has to allow an individual's choices, but a society can also choose not to interact with those who make those decisions. Doctors are free citizens who render their services at their own discretion. If they don't like anti-vaxxers, they're not obligated to force their other vulnerable patients to interact with them. Nor are they required to accomodate his special need by having a separate place in the waiting room. It's their door to put a Keep Out sign on, full stop.
It would be a good idea for the government to make it illegal to not vaccinate (except, of course, people with immune disorders thag prevent them from vaccinating). We just can't allow a small child to pay the price for their parent's stupidity. They might turn to a stupid treatment like meditation or tons of quinoa rather than get a real treatment.
@silvermyth 'little Johnny' wouldn't have to deal with the measles (most likely) if his parents would have vaccinated him in the first place. All of your hypotheticals could be prevented if parents didn't opt out of vaccinations for non-medical reasons.
@silvermyth because 'little johnny' didn't get immunized and got the measles, now he's spreading it to kids who are only a few months old who cannot receive the vaccine yet and he could kill those kids. The parents of 'little johnny' could have killed a baby because they didn't want their kid to be vaccinated for no good reason except their own selfishness.
I know that. Little Johnny shouldn't have to pay the price for his parents actions. If his parents want to get sick, let them. But when they hurt Little Johnny, we can't just say 'whelp, that's what you get'. That's like allowing someone to beat their child to death and saying that that's what they get for beating people.
@sm19 Would you rather that little johnny was cured and quarantined by a doctor, or left untreated where he could spread it to the young children you mentioned?
@silvermyth we still need to treat the kid because that is going to be bad if it spread, but you must admit that preventative medicine is the best medicine. We need to get all these kids vaccinated and by having pediatricians not putting up with the growing anti-vax movement we can hopefully get it through the skulls of the people who aren't vaccinating their kids because it 'goes against their liberty' (this is a legit thing happening in Texas that I found out today I'll link you). This shouldn't even be a debate in our time. People would have killed for a Polio vaccine back in the day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYocgDntyY
Turning the kid away from the doctor isn't going to get him vaccinated, it's going to get him killed. If he stays, there's a higher chance he will start vaccinating.
Also the thing is, you can't just 'treat' measles. It's like chicken pox - you can treat the symptoms not the actual virus. So if he does get it, you can't just magically treat him - you just needed to prevent it in the first place. We really can't do much for these anti-vaxx kids because the cure is already there in the vaccines. If they get the measles, polio, etc., they will get it and they can die and kill other kids in the process. The kids are pawns in their parents game. The parents don't open their eyes until their kid actually gets this illness and dies - I've seen too many cases on this out there. The parents are stuck in this movement and aren't going to magically change their ways even when confronted with evidence (ie the autism debunked claim). So turning him away is helping other kids in the practice because he will spread it to them. Little johnny is unfortunately s.o.l. until he is old enough to get vaccines with his consent (I was in the same boat for the HPV shot).
I get what you are saying. I agree with most of it, but I don't see how treating him and potentially (even if the chances are low) getting hin eventually vaccinated would cause major problems.
Oh I never want to refuse children healthcare that would be barbaric but this whole anti-vaxx debacle is making it that turning kids away is safer for the majority - needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the one. They don't want to turn them away, but they know it's safer for all of their other patients. I know, it's sad but that's the messed up world we live in.
I'd hope that the doctor might make a special case for the victims of idiot parents. At my doctor, we have a sick waiting room and a well one. There's got to be a better way than just keaving the child. Sure, the world is messed up. That doesn't mean we can try to work around it.
Accordibg to CNN, only 95% of kids is the U.S. are fully vaccinated. That leaves us with a great deal of unvaccinated kids.
They will counsel parents on vaccines and tell them it is in the child's best interest, but if the parents refuse they have to judge whether or not they want the liability. It's all comes down to risk assessment. If the doctor has 5 newborns in his practice that could get very sick and die from this one kid not being immunized, it is just too big a risk to take. The Doctors want what is best for all and that's why they push for the vaccines because they know that is what is best. Honestly, the only thing that would work is mandatory vaccinations. If you have TB in certain places in Canada for example, they can detain you and physically give you the treatment because you are such a health risk. If we could just have non-medical vaccinations stop happening (California did this) it makes everything better for the kids. They just need to do it, in my opinion. Kids shouldn't have to suffer medically because their parents are stuck in their ways.
If I ever had kids, I wouldn't want them in the same practice as people who don't vaccinate their kids. I would find a place that requires you to vaccinate their kids. It would allow me to have a better piece of mind knowing my kid is, statistically, less likely to catch measles or polio. I know you're for vaccinations and more for not denying kids healthcare, but you need both to be in place for it to be effective.
It's not the kid's fault, but choosing one kid over, lets say, five that are at risk isn't right
If you are a carrier, you can spread it. You do not have to be sick to be a carrier, but you do need to at least be a carrier to spread it.
Disclaimer-psychologist not an md (same ethics and standards though)
Your argument makes no sense.
Option 1; little johnny, left without treatment, spreads the measles to children who cannot be vaccinated. Little johnny dies.
Option 2; Little Johnny gets treatment for the measles. He doesn't spread it to anyone, and his parents (hopefully) learn their lesson
I honestly don't know where you are pulling these 5 kids statistics. Do you see my point?
If the worry is other children’s being exposed in the waiting room, he said, doctors could focus on measures to keep sick kids separate, or out of the waiting room until a doctor is available. “And if your concern is that these infected kids are going to go out and infect other kids — if you fire them from your practice, there would be more unimmunized kids in the world,” he said, since the hope is that if the families stay in the practice, eventually they may be persuaded. “Most people don’t say, nobody should see these kids; they just say, my practice shouldn’t see these kids. But if everybody said it, the world would be a much worse place.”
I like to think that this is a debate rather than an argument.
For both sides. I'd like to make it clear that I am in no way against vaccination; just against refusing children healthcare.
Accordibg to CNN, only 95% of kids is the U.S. are fully vaccinated. That leaves us with a great deal of unvaccinated kids.