Slashdot Mirror


Doctors "Fire" Vaccine Refusers

phantomfive writes "In a study of Connecticut pediatricians published last year, some 30% of 133 doctors said they had asked a family to leave their practice for vaccine refusal. Pediatricians are getting tired of families avoiding vaccines, which puts their children at higher risk of disease. From the article: 'Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices, raising questions about a doctor's responsibility to these patients. Medical associations don't recommend such patient bans, but the practice appears to be growing, according to vaccine researchers.'"

17 of 1,271 comments (clear)

  1. Seems reasonable.. by GreyLurk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't like my medical advice? Fine, go somewhere else. Seems perfectly reasonable and rational. If I were these doctors, I wouldn't want to feel responsible for the health of a child whose parents were demonstrably not interested in keeping their child healthy.

    1. Re:Seems reasonable.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It arguably goes further than that: Depending on the nature of your practice, you might have patients who are dependent on herd immunity(immunocompromized, vaccine component allergy, etc, etc.) Would a doctor be responsible in keeping people who are voluntary infection risks around the rest of their patients?

      If it were merely a matter of not taking good advice, I'd be a trifle ambivalent, certainly legal; but seems a bit tasteless. However, the infection risk makes it more like firing a medical assistant who won't wash their hands: it isn't just their health they are risking...

    2. Re:Seems reasonable.. by x1r8a3k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Generally I would agree, but it depends on where is the line drawn? I have never gotten a flu shot. Is that enough to turn me away?

      The other concerning part is only in TFA though about a child who had a preexisting condition that was exacerbated by vaccines, and was still refused by several doctors without even discussing the issue.

    3. Re:Seems reasonable.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt the doctors in question would throw you out, if the allergy is legitimate. You are not the kind of people being referred to, it's the completely retarded anti-vaccers who are the target of this. It is they who are putting your child at risk. Have a complaint, take it up with the evil fucking monster Andrew Wakefield.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Seems reasonable.. by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your doctor wasn't willing to make an exception for the child that is allergic to the vaccine, then you're better off with a new doctor anyway.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Seems reasonable.. by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your case is a little different. You have a valid, medical reason for not being able to have your son get all his vaccines. The autism-vaccine link has been shown to be non-existent. Thus, that is not a valid, medical reason for refusing vaccinations. A doctor should only be able to "fire" patients that don't have a medical reason.

    6. Re:Seems reasonable.. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there exist people that can't get vaccinated for various reasons, such as allergy or compromised immune system. Every person that buys into the anti-vaccine propaganda bullshit and doesn't have their children vaccinated weakens herd immunity. This means that the people with no other protection but herd immunity are being compromised by utter stupidity.

      Ask most people that could have their children vaccinated but chose not to: "Would you allow your child to travel to a place where there is no herd immunity without vaccinating them first?" I have (I have several extended family members who are anti-vaccination fools) and almost every time they respond "Hell, no!" A few even wear their hypocrisy like a badge of honor..."I refuse to put my children through any risk of complication whatsoever since I know everyone else will risk their own children and my child will be safe anyway." They fully realize how herd immunity works, and that it's a shared risk, but they totally don't give a shit and are perfectly happy being selfish little fuckwits.

      It's ridiculous how ignorant people are of history that we're going to end up having to suffer another major epidemic to squash this stupid anti-vaccination bullshit.

    7. Re:Seems reasonable.. by devilspgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest joke of it all is this: Even of vaccines do cause the things people guess that they might, you're still better off getting vaccinated.

      With Autism rates up around the 5.5 in 1,000 range (that's under half a percentage), even if every single autism case is caused by vaccines, you're still better off getting vaccinated and taking a tiny chance of autism over order-of-magnitude greater odds of dying in an epidemic when once hits your area thanks to the loss of herd immunity that generally keeps us protected.

      This ignores the fact that autism rates for those who are vs are not vaccinated seem to work out to be the same, and that no study has actually managed to link vaccines with autism.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  2. New Sign in the Doctors Office... by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No Shirt, No Shoes, No Vaccine: No Service. Go waste some other doctor's time. It's hard enough for doctors to make a living with Medicare cutbacks, insurance cuts, etc.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  3. Re:That makes things worse. by WoollyMittens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the contrary, the doctor has avoided harm to his other patients. Every new born baby or person with a weakened immune system is at risk from the preventable infections his unvaccinated patients bring into his clinic.

  4. If they don't trust vaccines... by Galaga88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If somebody doesn't trust vaccines, why are they going to a doctor in the first place?

    The sound science behind vaccinations is by and large the same sound science that doctor is going to be using when he diagnoses you and prescribes a treatment. You can't reject one without rejecting the other.

  5. Good for them by macwhizkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think people today are generally spoiled by good customer service at large retailers like Amazon or Best Buy, where the business writes off 1-2% of asshole customers who consume most of the customer support resources as the cost of doing business.

    The problem is, that doesn't extend to small businesses, where one bad customer can quite literally eat up a majority of the proprietor's time and energy, and the business doesn't have the depth to just send the customer free stuff to make them happy. Had that happen with a scout troop I volunteer for a couple times, where one obnoxious parent consumed hundred of hours of volunteer time before they were told to leave.

    If I were a physician, I'd certainly trade one marginal (in the economic sense) customer for the freedom from losing sleep at night about whether their child is dying from one of any number of untreatable disastrous diseases. If my patients are going to argue with me about whether vaccines are, in fact, the greatest medical development for humanity in the past two centuries, how on earth am I supposed to be able to get them to consent to any other medical science?

  6. Re:Always torn on these cases by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A doctor's responsibility is to all of their patients. Parents who are not vaccinating their children are not just risking their children. These children may be brought into close proximity to patients that cannot be vaccinated (very young) or whose immunity has worn off (the very old). As such it puts more than themselves at risk.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Re:Consider me fired. by hemo_jr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are willing to let your children die, and possibly infect and kill other children, that are not yours, and are too young to get vaccinated, you are to be both pitied and feared.

  8. Re:as well they by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tin-foil comes in maroon? Can I get it in purple instead?

    On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.

    No less, it's reasonable for a doctor to be able to refuse to treat a patient who continuously refuses treatment. At that point, the doctor is simply saying, well, if you don't want me to treat you, then I won't treat you.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  9. Re:Always torn on these cases by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the fuck? "they're causing many narcolepsy cases" - [citation needed] to the max. I don't even know of any mechanism by which a vaccine could have anything to do with narcolepsy.

    Then you go and revise history. It was a pandemic, even though not everybody got sick (pandemic has a specific definition that was met). And it was on par with the average flu in terms of mortality, but it was affecting the young and able-bodied disproportionately - a characteristic it shared with the 1918 flu epidemic, which was also an H1N1 strain. Young and able-bodied are both more resistant to infection in the first place, and more capable of spreading it, so there was absolutely cause for alarm.

    It was probably overhyped (mostly by the media) but it was not "many kids getting their lives ruined". From what I can find, one person died from an anaphylactic reaction, but that says more about the environment in which they were vaccinated because we know how to treat anaphylaxis. About 30 people had temporary problems possibly resulting from the vaccine, but they all recovered.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  10. Re:US-Europe cultural difference ? by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's the difference between the US and Europe, but here in Europe, not all doctors recommend all available vaccines. I wouldn't trust my doctor if he would recommend that I (or my children) get a vaccine against flue for example.

    If your doctor recommended a flu shot, he/she thinks you're in an at-risk group. Influenza is not a harmless infection, it kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in a typical (non-pandemic) year.

    Now, I've lived in the US for some time and I've been shocked by the amount of drugs people take everytime they feel somewhat bad. I think there is a middleground between the "listen to your body, it will cure cancer by itself" bullshit and the "omg, I have a headache, let's eat these 3 pills". Same for vaccine.

    A flu vaccine isn't like antibiotics or painkillers or anti-depressants or other drugs that may be harmful is needlessly prescribed. A vaccine introduces your immune system to a foreign element, which it then remembers so, if introduced to it again (in a live virus), it will be able to attack it more immediately. Getting a flu vaccine needlessly isn't going to weaken you or cause you to be more likely to be sick.