Anti Vaxxers

[samiam]

Is anyone here a Anti-Vaxxer (I Hope Not) and if so why? I am sure your opinion will be respectfully debated here but I am actually interested in where these people are coming from. And if so or even if not, please watch this Public Service Announcment! (Start at 3 min!)
**Some NSFW BLEEPED LANGUAGE
**Please keep it tastefull!

 

[Ewok Jerky]

They are coming from an ill-informed understanding of how the immune system functions. Can't really blame them until they've been educated and still make the wrong choice.

Just read in the local paper that the two largest pediatric clinics here are going to fire patients who are not vaccinated.

 

[samiam]

Just read in the local paper that the two largest pediatric clinics here are going to fire patients who are not vaccinated.

Yea actually I have been talking to people about the ethics of that. It really is interesting. I personally would not take patients who wont vaccinate. Ultimately if you trust me enough to take care of you and give you reliable advice, and I present you with all of the facts only a not mentally sound person would choose otherwise. Obviously there are exceptions to who should vaccinate but herd immunization is a vital protection we have to prevent all of these terrible things. Measles kills one in 300 people and puts 1 in 3 in the hospital. So if ten people have a "measles party" thats 3 kids going to the hospital, go bind or go septic. 1 in 2 million have complications from the vaccine and those are people who probably should not have gotten it in the first place, someone did not do a good history/exam.

 

[Ewok Jerky]

Yea actually I have been talking to people about the ethics of that.

Autonomy: patients have the right to choose
Non-maleficence: do no harm
Justice: use resources judiciously
Beneficence: act in the best interest of the patient

The trick is do you keep these people on so you can at least keep an eye on them at the risk of the rest of your patient panel? How do you balance doing the best for that KID while doing no harm to the rest of the kids. Remember, your patient is the child not the parents.

 

[PeacefulIce]

The family I nanny for has tried to blame their sons brain damage (lissencephaly and lysosomal enzyme disorders) on his vaccines because he was diagnosed at 3 months after his 2 month vaccines.

It is ignorance and the "in" thing to do in some social circles. In this case, the mom is a organic, unprocessed nut. She believes vaccines are poison we are injecting into our children's bodies and believes they are literally to blame for autism, cancer, ADHD, you name it. Every time her kids get shots, she rubs essential oils on their feet to detoxify them. She literally believes the government is covering up mountains of evidence they are dangerous.

They didn't vaccinate him or his twin for a good number of months until the doctor threatened to fire them if they didn't vaccinate.

Having spent endless hours in the home of an anti vaxxer these are the reasons I've heard. Zero listening to reason.

 

[samiam]

The trick is do you keep these people on so you can at least keep an eye on them at the risk of the rest of your patient panel? How do you balance doing the best for that KID while doing no harm to the rest of the kids. Remember, your patient is the child not the parents.

Exactly, thats where I struggle personally. Its a tough choice to have to not care for the kid because of the parents misinformed decision. Then again it is also putting everyone at the office/hospital at risk as well.

 

[redundantbassist]

But... i saw it on MSNBC, it has to be true!

 

[ERDoc]

These people make my head explode. I don't have the choice to turn these parents away, nor would I when the child is sick. I don't have any problem with pediatricians turning away these families. If you don't trust your physician to provide you with proper information about vaccines, how do you trust them when it comes to anything else?

 

[RebelAngel]

I don't get into the whole vaccine debate because opinions like *******s and whatever "scientific" or medical reason you have for vaccinating someone else could have one for not vaccinating.

What is boils down to for me is that I am delay/selectively vaccinate for me and my family, for a number of reasons. I didn't make that decision lightly I weighed many points including real world risks of disease, real world risks of the vaccination itself, and benefits, research, and on and one for quite awhile before deciding to stop vaccinating everyone for everything all the time.

 

[ERDoc]

That is the thing about vaccinations though, it is not about opinion, reasons or excuses, it is about evidence, facts and public health. What exactly do you mean by "real world risks of disease"?

 

[ricardoj]

Can I just say what we all have been thinking? That "doctor" in the video, the guy with the tie and brown hair....100% NOT a doctor. You know how I know this? No stethoscope around his neck. The rest are legit. That is all.

 

[ERDoc]

I'm not a real doctor

 

[Eleventy7]

"They cause autism." 1. False 2. If I had to choose between autism and dying from measles I'd choose autism every time.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I don't get into the whole vaccine debate because opinions like *******s and whatever "scientific" or medical reason you have for vaccinating someone else could have one for not vaccinating.

What is boils down to for me is that I am delay/selectively vaccinate for me and my family, for a number of reasons. I didn't make that decision lightly I weighed many points including real world risks of disease, real world risks of the vaccination itself, and benefits, research, and on and one for quite awhile before deciding to stop vaccinating everyone for everything all the time.

I'm curious how your reasoning worked in coming to this decision. Not to be critical, just to understand how some people come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is better than vaccinating.

I assume that by "real world risks of the disease", you mean the risk of contracting the disease in question without being vaccinated. But don't the (currently very low) risks of contracting something like measles or polio depend primarily on the fact that vaccinations?

Also, what source(s) did you use that you felt provided unbiased information on the risks of vaccination?

 

[RebelAngel]

I do not mind engaging in discussion in which people exchange information. It's the whole vaccine debate that really gets to me, both sides of it. One day when I have more time I will PM you with my reasons for selectively/delayed vaccinating. It's years of information I used to make my decision.

As far as real world risk, I mean what is the likely hood of contracting the disease and what risks and in what severity present with those diseases.

Now that I can see your entire comment, which I couldn't see on my phone, I will reply to the rest.

First, some vaccinated people contract the disease from the vaccination, that's not an opinion, that is fact. Vaccinations also do not protect 100% from the disease nor 100% of the time, that is also a fact and not an opinion.

As far as unbiased sources...there isn't one. I did a lot of weeding, on both sides of the spectrum and in the middle and used all information available to make my decision to delay/selectively vaccinate. That's one of the reasons why I said I'd get back to you when I had more time.

I'm curious how your reasoning worked in coming to this decision. Not to be critical, just to understand how some people come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is better than vaccinating.

I assume that by "real world risks of the disease", you mean the risk of contracting the disease in question without being vaccinated. But don't the (currently very low) risks of contracting something like measles or polio depend primarily on the fact that vaccinations?

Also, what source(s) did you use that you felt provided unbiased information on the risks of vaccination?

That is the thing about vaccinations though, it is not about opinion, reasons or excuses, it is about evidence, facts and public health. What exactly do you mean by "real world risks of disease"?

 

[RebelAngel]

I'm curious how your reasoning worked in coming to this decision. Not to be critical, just to understand how some people come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is better than vaccinating.

I assume that by "real world risks of the disease", you mean the risk of contracting the disease in question without being vaccinated. But don't the (currently very low) risks of contracting something like measles or polio depend primarily on the fact that vaccinations?

Also, what source(s) did you use that you felt provided unbiased information on the risks of vaccination?

You could start with the piece of paper that comes in the box/container with the vaccines. It's an unusual request but I get them, and actually read them, when I get myself or my children vaccinated.

 

[gotbeerz001]

It just seems like the decision to not vaccinate because the perceived likelihood of contraction is low (due to vaccination) is like the pt who has HTN stopping the meds because they thought they didn't have HTN anymore....

 

[EMTinCT]

When an unvaccinated kid transmits a vaccine-preventable disease to someone too young or medically unable to get the vaccine one has to wondering about criminal liability of the parents. There was a good Law and Order episode about this where a mother was successfully convicted of negligent homicide because she chose not to vaccinate and her unvaccinated kid transmitted a vaccine-preventable disease to someone who then died. The judge reversed the jury's ruling, sadly.

Anyone who is antivaxx better have a PhD in immunology and publish scientific papers on why they are putting people at risk. Otherwise their opinion is dangerous.

 

[MonkeyArrow]

There was a good Law and Order episode about this where a mother was successfully convicted of negligent homicide because she chose not to vaccinate and her unvaccinated kid transmitted a vaccine-preventable disease to someone who then died. The judge reversed the jury's ruling, sadly.

Did you just cite Law and Order to prove parents can be held criminally responsible?

 

[DesertMedic66]

Did you just cite Law and Order to prove parents can be held criminally responsible?

But everything seen on TV is true right? Just like on CSI where you have the crime scene investigators shooting and arresting the bad guys as the SWAT guys are the last ones to enter the buidling