Slashdot Mirror
UK Court Orders Two Sisters Must Receive MMR Vaccine
rnws writes "The BBC reports that an English High Court judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it. The High Court decision, made last month, came after the girls' father brought a case seeking vaccination. When outlining her decision in the latest case, Mrs Justice Theis emphasized it was a specific case 'only concerned with the welfare needs of these children', but lawyers say as one of a series it confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."
You missed the part about the father wanting the kids vaccinated.
love is just extroverted narcissism
But that was not the issue here.
Half of their legal guardians wanted them to get the vaccine, and the other half did not want it. The kids had picked a side, but were too young for their opinion to matter.
So, in the end either the court could of just said, "well we cannot decide for you", or it could take the role of a third child guardian, and base their decision on the medical science.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
s/even/only/. You can get shingles only if you have previously had chicken pox. If you haven't, and if you get exposed, you get chicken pox, not shingles. Shingles is just the long-dormant virus becoming active again.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Of course, a hospital *ambience* is what's important?! And you get pretty damn close. Most complications are known ahead, in which case a home birth is ill advised.
No. If I must spell it out: the ambiance of home births do not equate to the success of a hospital based birth.
There are plenty of "known complications" that can predict the need for C-section:pre-eclampsia, hypertension, previous (high risk) fetus, HIV infection of the mother, sexually transmitted infections, previous classical Caesarean section, previous uterine rupture, prior problems with the the perineum, bicornuate uterus, to name a few.
The problem lies in the unexpected indications (same reference): prolonged labour or a failure to progress (dystocia), fetal distress, cord prolapse, uterine rupture, hypertension or tachycardia after amniotic rupture, placenta praevia, placental abruption or placenta accreta, breech or transverse presentation, failed labor induction, large baby weighing >4000g (macrosomia), umbilical cord abnormalities (vasa previa, multilobate including bilobate and succenturiate-lobed placentas, velamentous insertion), meconium in the amniotic fluid, fetal acidosis (including lactic acidosis), amniotic fluid embolism, and my personal favorite the wonderfully morbid splenic artery rupture, to name a few. Not to mention the risk to the baby once delivered including aspiration, respiratory distress (including apnea), bronchopulmonary dysplasia, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, cardiac abnormalities not seen on screening ultrasounds, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and cardiac arrest, to name a few more.
Most of the midwives/doula/witchdoctors have little to no training in these conditions. They literally "do not know what they do not know". As a result there is often a significant and life-threatening delay in transfer to a medical center where someone who is versed in all aspects of child birth (the Ob-Gyn), gets to bail the mother and fetus out. Wanna roll the dice with your kid? Go for it, you have every right - most women and fetuses will survive...but for those who have complications, I repeat: Caveat Emptor.
As for me and my wife? I'm not going too risk it, and I personally have the skill, knowledge, experience and license to perform c-sections (albeit emergent ones)....
Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.
As far as I know, the MMR controversy was not initially related to an alternative vaccine (at least not one that was ever produced). It originated with Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the UK who claimed there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He produced a flawed paper claiming such a link and had been paid 55k GBP by parties interested in establishing a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Wakefield_Lancet_paper_controversy The only reason the whole thing blew up as it did was because the press reported his "findings" in an uncritically positive light. (This is the same press who have warned the British public about the dangers of "WiFi radiation in our schools" on the front page of a national broadsheet.) Wakefield's paper was later retracted when evidence of fraud (data fabrication) came to light. Whilst this was reported in the media, it wasn't really made clear that the whole house of cards had collapsed. The media didn't apologise (as far as I know) nor did they embark on a campaign to clear the name of the MMR vaccine, so to speak.
Wakefield had plans to profit from the demise of MMR (testing kits, alternative vaccines, etc) but he never got that far.
soylentnews.org
What are you on about? Influenza is a type of virus, not a series of symptoms. You can have a bad flu. You can have not so bad a flu. If they are both caused by the flu virus, then they are both flu.
Please stop spreading nonsense. "Flu" is a disease caused by the influenza virus. You can have bad symptoms from the influenza virus. Or you can have not so bad symptoms from the influenza virus. But both are flu.
I would agree, except for one detail... the court merely agreed that the father could vaccinate them, even without the mother's consent.