More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

[Cajuncowboy]

As a doctor few things bother me more than ignorant people making claims about vaccines they have no business making. It's the internet age where people think a google search qualifies them to speak intelligently on vaccines. The argument usually involves some inane rant about heavy metal toxicity and how vaccines are loaded with heavy metals that the people making the argument can't even spell.

The reality is that it's been shown time and again that some vaccines contain small amounts of thimerosal which contains mercury but the amount isnt enough enough to hurt lab rats let alone people. There's more mercury in food preservatives than in vaccines but nobody is accusing Slim Jims of causing autism.

Good for these doctors, and I don't blame them one bit. People who choose to not vaccinate their children based on irrational fears are putting not only their children's health in danger but thatof other, responsible people as well. I would not want my waiting rooms filled with unvaccinated children.

I think a lot of the fears come from the medical arena itself. I know when we went to get my kids vaccinated years ago, the doctor said here is what she has to have and here are the "possible" side effects. And it seemed like it was everything from a mild rash to elephantiasis. We were brand new parents and frankly, the first few days we were really freaked out.

"Well what if this causes her to have Giant Eye Syndrome?"

"What happens if she grows a third arm?"

I'm being a bit flippant here but honestly, the papers they gave us read like a medical journal and it really made us pause before we made the decision.

With that said, we did pray on it and got a release to allow the vaccines. I don't have an issue with parents refusing it on religious grounds if that is in their doctrine, but I think the fear is magnified by all the info the doctors are forced to provide due to potential litigation.

 

[Future]

It's not even about luxury status.

It's about being a responsible care giver and not exposing the multitude of your patients to treat a few who refuse to get vaccinated.

I feel more sorry for the kids who aren't vaccinated than anything. Their parents ridiculous actions are not only exposing others to risk but exposing them to unnecessary risks.

We agree, and yet, I feel like you're arguing with me :laugh2:

 

[Faerluna]

We agree, and yet, I feel like you're arguing with me :laugh2:

Remember, a hug is a strangle you haven't finished yet.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

are you equating a restaurant with medical services? they are not the same, one is a luxury, the other a necessity.

Necessity vs. luxury? Don't know about Canada but here in the US, good luck trying to see a doctor without health insurance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Necessity vs. luxury? Don't know about Canada but here in the US, good luck trying to see a doctor without health insurance.

Here in the U.S., often times you won't see a Dr. even if you have health insurance but, you will have the opportunity to see a NP or some such.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you have to be careful what you wish for here. If you create a policy that says you do not treat patients who do not take vaccines, where does it end? Do you then create policy that says you will not treat patients who smoke or drink or do not have their female children have progestin implants done or who knows what. It's a dangerous precedents to start IMO. I think that the Medical Practice is at a critical point right now. This country is driven on capitalism. If Doctors turn patients away because of these kinds issues, there will always be somebody who will see an opportunity and take these patients on. You may end up hurting your practice more then helping it.

I would be careful on how I handled this were I a Dr.

 

[JD_KaPow]

But at the same time, the Doctor, who are in business have a right to refuse them service except for emergency care and stabilization.

Depends. If a doctor agrees to be an in-network provider for an HMO or other such organization, it's not clear to me that they can then pick and choose their patients within that network. Not talking about rights here, but about contractual requirements.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Depends. If a doctor agrees to be an in-network provider for an HMO or other such organization, it's not clear to me that they can then pick and choose their patients within that network. Not talking about rights here, but about contractual requirements.

That may be a whole other issue and maybe one the doctors have to decide before making that agreement. Good point.

 

[VietCowboy]

I think you have to be careful what you wish for here. If you create a policy that says you do not treat patients who do not take vaccines, where does it end? Do you then create policy that says you will not treat patients who smoke or drink or do not have their female children have progestin implants done or who knows what. It's a dangerous precedents to start IMO. I think that the Medical Practice is at a critical point right now. This country is driven on capitalism. If Doctors turn patients away because of these kinds issues, there will always be somebody who will see an opportunity and take these patients on. You may end up hurting your practice more then helping it.

I would be careful on how I handled this were I a Dr.

Not really, some obstetrician refuse to work with women who are over a certain weight for delivery. The probability for complications and thus malpractice suits are extremely high.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...sity-doc-20110516_1_gyn-ob-gyn-obese-patients

"People don't realize the risk we're taking by taking care of these patients," said Dr. Albert Triana, whose two-physician practice in South Miami declines patients classified as obese. "There's more risk of something going wrong and more risk of getting sued. Everything is more complicated with an obese patient in GYN surgeries and in [pregnancies]."

 

[The30YardSlant]

I think you have to be careful what you wish for here. If you create a policy that says you do not treat patients who do not take vaccines, where does it end? Do you then create policy that says you will not treat patients who smoke or drink or do not have their female children have progestin implants done or who knows what. It's a dangerous precedents to start IMO. I think that the Medical Practice is at a critical point right now. This country is driven on capitalism. If Doctors turn patients away because of these kinds issues, there will always be somebody who will see an opportunity and take these patients on. You may end up hurting your practice more then helping it.

I would be careful on how I handled this were I a Dr.

I don't believe the line is quite as thin as you make it sound. Unvaccinated children can pose an immediate health risk to others, smokers do not harm anyone when they arent smoking (and every doctor's office in the country is non-smoking). Drinking doesnt medically harm anyone but the drinker.

There are a lot of things I'm not ok with turning people away for, but I agree with this.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not really, some obstetrician refuse to work with women who are over a certain weight for delivery. The probability for complications and thus malpractice suits are extremely high.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...sity-doc-20110516_1_gyn-ob-gyn-obese-patients

"People don't realize the risk we're taking by taking care of these patients," said Dr. Albert Triana, whose two-physician practice in South Miami declines patients classified as obese. "There's more risk of something going wrong and more risk of getting sued. Everything is more complicated with an obese patient in GYN surgeries and in [pregnancies]."

Not really what? You don't really have to be careful? It's not really a dangerous precedents?

How would somebody get sued for malpractice because a patient didn't take a vaccine?

The point is that once you start this business of excluding certain people, for various reasons, you can not tell what the unintended consequences might be. You may also find that you hurt your business more then you help it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't believe the line is quite as thin as you make it sound. Unvaccinated children can pose an immediate health risk to others, smokers do not harm anyone when they arent smoking (and every doctor's office in the country is non-smoking). Drinking doesnt medically harm anyone but the drinker.

There are a lot of things I'm not ok with turning people away for, but I agree with this.

I don't believe that you or anybody knows how thin or even where that line is. If you set the precedents, you don't know what may be included later. History certainly proves that over and over. Break that seal and see how far some will push it for the sake of their own agenda.

 

[VietCowboy]

I don't believe that you or anybody knows how thin or even where that line is. If you set the precedents, you don't know what may be included later. History certainly proves that over and over. Break that seal and see how far some will push it for the sake of their own agenda.

Here's what can happen if you DO allow an unvaccinated child into your practice:

The boy's measles immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive laboratory test result was reported to the county health department on February 1, 2008. During January 31--February 19, a total of 11 additional measles cases in unvaccinated infants and children aged 10 months--9 years were identified. These 11 cases included both of the index patient's siblings (rash onset: February 3), five children in his school (rash onset: January 31--February 17), and four additional children (rash onset: February 6--10) who had been in the pediatrician's office on January 25 at the same time as the index patient. Among these latter four patients, three were infants aged <12 months. One of the three infants was hospitalized for 2 days for dehydration; another infant traveled by airplane to Hawaii on February 9 while infectious.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm

It was contained b/c the CDC caught the outbreak early and rapidly quarantined man of the individuals

This is just one outbreak. You are reading about these outbreaks more and more every year. I don't think it is irresponsible for a doctor to refuse a family who is adamantly against vaccinating considering the consequences it can have.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I don't believe that you or anybody knows how thin or even where that line is. If you set the precedents, you don't know what may be included later. History certainly proves that over and over. Break that seal and see how far some will push it for the sake of their own agenda.

But is the line not drawn at the point in which your actions physically harm others? That seems pretty reasonable to me, at least in the case of medicine.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here's what can happen if you DO allow an unvaccinated child into your practice:



http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm

It was contained b/c the CDC caught the outbreak early and rapidly quarantined man of the individuals

This is just one outbreak. You are reading about these outbreaks more and more every year. I don't think it is irresponsible for a doctor to refuse a family who is adamantly against vaccinating considering the consequences it can have.

If this posed a serious threat of epidemic proportions to a body of people, the Government would step in. Since the Government has not, I don't think that you can say with any legal backing that it does pose a danger or not. This is what the CDC and other like organizations are for. There is a process.

Now, having said this, I never said that a private practice did not have the right. I said that they should be careful the precedents they set and the ramifications it could have on their practice. At no time did I say they could not do it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

But is the line not drawn at the point in which your actions physically harm others? That seems pretty reasonable to me, at least in the case of medicine.

Not in our society. Without going into examples that are sure to trigger a more political discussion, let me just say that there are many, many topics of concern from various walks of life that have been put forth and subsequent precedents set that have been twisted and turned to serve less then noble causes or even the original cause they may have been designed to serve.

I think you understand what I am trying to say without actually violating the rules of the board. I'm just saying, things can be passed or precedents set with the very best of intentions but where they lead or what they are transformed into by others can often be more harmful then good.