lucysmama Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I am not saying that providers need to stand idly by while their patients abuse them (for drugs, attention, or whatever). What I am saying is that the vaccine issue is not going away, there will always be uninformed parents who think they are well informed, and that the only way to inform these parents is to treat them with respect, allow them to make their decisions and then you might change some minds. If you dismiss them out of hand because of their decision not to vaccinate, you will only galvanize the position to not vaccinate. Many years ago, I chose to vaccinate, but at my own schedule. I was fired from a practice that would not work with me, though I had assured them that my daughter would be fully vaccinated. I found a doctor willing to work with me, one who happened to be one of the West Coast's foremost authorities on vaccination, by the way, and today my daughter is fully vaccinated. I understand that this would not work for every patient or every practice, but it works. You accept decisions made by a family, consistently offer them information and eventually they may come around to a different point of view. Fire them and they certainly will not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 You still seem to be missing or simply ignoring "Just_Me's" & "Joelseff's" point that just as YOU the patient have a choice... so does the provider. The provider has the choice NOT to waste valuable time and effort playing games trying to "convince" you the patient that they know what they are talking about. Lots of providers would much rather spend their clinical time caring for people who value their medical insight versus spending time in exam rooms jousting with folks who spent to much time on the internet and not enough time in school... Contrarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemedic13 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Contrarian: The provider has a right to dismiss, absolutely. But we are talking about what we think is responsible to do. Both sides have pretty valid arguments. Seems like it is ultimately personal choice. I still think you shouldn't though. IMO they will have trouble finding an allopathic/osteopathic/nurse provider and will ultimately take their kids to some ND in a state without regulations who got his/her "degree" off the internet and the kid will suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemegroup Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 ND = Noctor Durse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambi Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I think he's referring to "Naturopath" Bath in the alternative glory here: ND :xD: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemegroup Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Oh right ... I read "degree off the internet" and just naturally assumed lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I think it IS a responsible action for providers to dismiss pt's/parents of pts if they chronically CHOOSE to not comply with your professional medical advice. It would be a grudge-match every time they come in. I had 2 pts in my peds rotation that made me reconsider working in pediatrics (I did it in NEAR BERKELEY...nuff said). There was a 2 year old who had FIVE AOM's in 4 months. I referred to ENT for eval for PT tube and myringotomy after the 3rd episode of recalcitrant OM. The parents refused but KEPT COMING back in. EVERY visit was the same. I brought in my preceptor and she threatened to dismiss the pt. The kid was two and was in danger of speech development probs. he ended up getting the PT tube and got better. The second was a chinese immigrant who gave their 5 year old amoxicillin tablets she got from China for an asthma exacerbation. I told her that using medication without proper training and education is dangerous. She said "well, I'm her mother, Don't I have a say in how to make her feel better?" She's right but playing practitioner and handing out medicine willy-nilly puts her child in danger. These examples made me decide AGAINST pediatrics (I was offered a job there too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucysmama Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I don't think I am ignoring the points of the other posters, I just think that choosing ONE issue (vaccination) as the thing that will cause you to not care for a family seems an irresponsible choice. I think advising a classroom of learners to dismiss patients because of this one issue is irresponsible. I think there is a lot of gray area and there are a lot of reasons to dismiss families. Seems a waste just to say to a patient, "oh you don't vaccinate? see you later." If after you work with this family and put in the time and ultimately feel the provider relationship is not being respected, go ahead and dismiss. But if you dismiss just because they disagree on one point initially,whatever that point might be, well, the practice might get a bit small. Not to mention that if you think that all your other advice is being followed when they leave the office, you might be in a for a big surprise - will you dismiss every time an obese person refuses to diet and exercise? Every time a smoker doesn't quit smoking? My point is that people focus on this one thing as a case for dismissing out of hand. And that I don't agree it is a good policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted April 3, 2011 Moderator Share Posted April 3, 2011 smoking is an addiction that is likely harder to get off of then a lot of other illecit drugs.... it is not the same as choosing to not vaccinate I do not work in peds so this entire topic is out of my area - but to enable people to continue to get care on the miss advice that vaccinations are not needed I view as malpractice (my own view - by no means meant to be anything beyond that) if every provider in the community refused to see patients that were not vaccinated and there was a push to educate patients I suspect there will be far less people that "exercise their own stupidity" and decline vaccinations. just my thoughts, but why enable people who choose to ignore modern knowledge and place the greater good of society at risk? We can't go around breaking the rules (laws) of society with out repercussions (getting arrested) because it is a danger to society. Why is this any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marilynpac Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Well I did work peds and as I said b/f, I wouldn't punish a child b/c of the parent's ignorance..instead information/education is a much more empowering tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucysmama Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 marilynpac - couldn't have said it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Lucysmama, I specifically chose to address vaccinations not only because it is a "hot-button" issue, but because there is a definite societal RISK... The greater the unvaccinated population, the greater the risk to the general population ( the "herd") at large. I will make an assumption that you are younger than 55. If this is so, and if you have never been in the philippines or other 3rd world countries, I would venture to guess that you have never seen polio. I had three classmates with the disease in elementary school. You probably have never seen whooping cough. Or smallpox. Or rubella. I have seen all of these. And they and their brethren are the devils that had almost been put back into a locked box... Until the "I won't vaccinate my kids" movement started and these diseases ( except small pox) are beginning to re-emerge. As a libertarian, I agree it is generally your choice to do what you want until that choice threatens to smash my nose. I believe this so deeply that I will discuss your choices and explore your reasons for them, but will not endorse them. If I am working in a clinic and you bring unvaccinated kids in, in my opinion, you are the moral equivalent of driving while drinking. And I won't abide that. I WILL find you another clinic to be seen at. You just cannot come to mine. ( I don't mean "you" as lucysmama.. But "you" if you won't vaccinate) v/r Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucysmama Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 For the record - yes, I am under 55. But yes, I also lived in India for 3 years and have seen many diseases such as polio, for which there is a vaccination and Hansen's disease (leprosy) for which there is not. I respect anyone's decision not treat anyone for whatever values they hold. And I appreciate that you would go to the trouble of finding another clinic that would take care of your patient. I still can't agree to dismiss based on the vaccination issue. I would dismiss if I felt I was being abused in any way and have no trouble with that. I also never said that I endorsed the choice not to vaccinate, only that I was willing to work with and educate parents who make that choice and hope that they change their minds. I am pretty certain that the only way a person will change their mind is if they feel they are being treated with respect and consideration without being dismissed out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Looks like we aren't the only folks that won't tolerate jeopardizing the lives of others due to ignorance and stupidity... Hot off the press: Beverly mother convicted of attempted murder for withholding cancer meds from son Posted by John Ellement April 12, 2011 05:27 PM A 38-year-old Beverly mother was convicted today of attempted murder and other charges for withholding cancer medications from her son, who eventually died from his illness... [brevity edit]... LaBrie failed to provide chemotherapy medication in the months after her son was diagnosed in October 2006 with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Once doctors realized that he had not been taking the prescribed medications, in February 2008, Jeremy was placed in the custody of his father. The boy died in March 2009 at the age of 9, after his illness progressed to leukemia. ... [brevity edit]... "she was depressed and overwhelmed by the care of Jeremy, who also had autism"... ... [brevity edit]... “Ms. LaBrie was unable to put chemotherapy medication into her son’s body,’’ he said. “Her coping and ability to do what she had to do started to wane." LaBrie was also convicted of assault and battery on a disabled person with injury, assault and battery on a child with substantial injury, and reckless endangerment of a child. The panel of seven women and five men deliberated for five hours Monday. The jury reached a verdict at about 10:30 this morning. At one point Monday, jurors asked Judge Welch about a parent’s legal responsibility to administer prescribed medications. Over the objection of the defense, the judge responded by saying a parent would be required to administer medications if they would protect a child from significant harm. Read More Here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemedic13 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Looks like we aren't the only folks that won't tolerate jeopardizing the lives of others due to ignorance and stupidity... Hot off the press: Yeah... but while the judge is right that you have to treat your kid to prevent harm, a) vaccination =/= cancer, and b) the oncologist kept the kid and continued treating him when the cancer came back. And just so you know, from what I have read it appeared to me she was guilty. I totally would've loved to have been prosecuting that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marilynpac Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Yeah... but while the judge is right that you have to treat your kid to prevent harm, a) vaccination =/= cancer, and b) the oncologist kept the kid and continued treating him when the cancer came back. And just so you know, from what I have read it appeared to me she was guilty. I totally would've loved to have been prosecuting that one. I thought I heard that the father came back and made sure the child received proper care, with that the mother completely fell out of the pix. That's why she was convicted, the jury didn't like the mother abandonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucysmama Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Just a little aside here - that doc who lectured our class advocating the firing of an non-vaccinating family - she lives in my neighborhood. I watched her and she trailed behind her 2 small children on bikes. They weren't wearing helmets. I guess personal safety isn't as important to her as public safety is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Just a little aside here - that doc who lectured our class advocating the firing of an non-vaccinating family - she lives in my neighborhood. I watched her and she trailed behind her 2 small children on bikes. They weren't wearing helmets. I guess personal safety isn't as important to her as public safety is... Gasp...!!! Oh my god... she also drinks un-florinated H2O...!! [sarcasm off] IMO... Silly comparison Un-vaccinated people are disease vectors and a PUBLIC threat... a un-helmeted kid is a danger to self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdavis Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 ^^^^^^... eggggzackly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.