|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579711 - 06/30/08 05:38 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
legislation giving nurses and others the right to practice anesthesia.
holy shit I cannot think of a worse idea
I have no problem with a nurse giving a shot of Lidocane, but they certainly have no place practicing general anesthesia (imho). There are CRNA programs for nurses that wish to specialize in anesthesia, but if I am on the table, it will be a fully licensed and board certified anesthesiologist (medical doctor) that puts me under.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: Seuss]
#8579779 - 06/30/08 06:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: Diploid]
#8579790 - 06/30/08 06:44 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That's the CRNA program that Seuss mentioned. Seems like a good idea now that I can see how much extra training is required. And they also get paid $140k! And so they should.
I see nothing there about "blocking legislation giving nurses the right to practice anaesthesia". It seems they've had that right for ages and it isn't under any threat. Unless it's just not mentioned in that article.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: Seuss]
#8579822 - 06/30/08 07:16 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
The schools should teach kids. If the schools want to exclude sick kids, fine. But don't exclude healthy kids on the ground that they could be a vector for a disease- garbage.
If the parents want to go to a school with all white children, or all immunized, or all circumcised, or all anything else, they are free to go to a private school with such a policy- or should be.
This is the only part I disagree with you. If parents want to skip vaccinations, fine, BUT, their kids don't get to mingle with my kids at public school. Private schools can take whatever risks they like. Home schooling is also an option. (Unfortunately, debate about public schools existing or not is for another thread.)
There is a difference between "all white schools", "all circumcised schools", and "all immunized schools". The difference is that in all white or all circumcised, the act of being white or being circumcised does not have the potential to effect the health of another child. If a non-vaccinated child gets sick and spreads disease to some vaccinated children, then the vaccinated children's parents should have recourse to sue for loses (lost wages, medical expenses, etc) caused by the non-vaccinated child.
(Personally, I don't think there should be public schools funded by the federal government, thus the federal government shouldn't have any say in immunizations for school children; unfortunately, we have to work within the system that exists.)
I understand the difference between what I listed and vacinations, however; the point is that government shouldn't be able to deprive you of your benefits, school for your kids, unless you comply with regulations that don't have a substantial and narrowly-tailored benifit to the mission of the school- education.
I understand the trouble an unvaccinated kid can cause. It comes down to whether their is sufficient risk to the school that the kid must be excluded. I don't know all the facts, but I doubt such a risk exists with every required vaccination for a hypothetical state/locale. Take measals. It appears there was 216 cases of measels in 2001- 2003 (not sure if 2003 was included or not) in the US. About half were simply imported from afar. Is this incidence great enough to infringe upon a liberty interest of a child or their parent?
What about the flu? Should the kid be required to get a flu shot? Much more people die of the flu in a given year in this country than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Surely the government must require noone go unvaccinated.
There were 628,000 violent assaults among students at school in 2005. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/
Surely the government must require pads be worn on student's hands and feet, and all students don helmets? How could they do otherwise? If a disease such as measals has such a low incidence, yet fighting is so prevalant, mustn't we protect Seuss' kids by requiring everyone where pads on their body parts likely to inflict injury? Surely the math suggests so.
Do you guys support mandatory vaccinations to leave your house? How about to go shopping or in areas analogous to schools? I have a problem with government restricting rights of people less they comply with regulation unless there is a serious risk to others, I doubt that's the case here for vaccinations as a whole.
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
legislation giving nurses and others the right to practice anesthesia.
holy shit I cannot think of a worse idea
I have no problem with a nurse giving a shot of Lidocane, but they certainly have no place practicing general anesthesia (imho). There are CRNA programs for nurses that wish to specialize in anesthesia, but if I am on the table, it will be a fully licensed and board certified anesthesiologist (medical doctor) that puts me under.
What do you mean they have no place practicing general anesthesia? They shouldn't, by law, be able to function autonomously or they shouldn't be able to follow protocols and orders? Should the law mandate this?
If the law should mandate it, why? What is the difference between the identical training recieved by a hypothetical nurse and a hypothetical doctor?
I don't understand how a family physician is able to do the anesthesia on a heart transplant, something he knows nothing about, but a nurse shouldn't, by law, be able to.
I have no problem with you personal choice. I have a problem with laws and regulations preventing me from having a full assortment of profesionals to choose from whom I recieve care. If I want to get care from a doctor, I should be able to, same from a nure or whatever.
I see no reason why a dermatologist should be able to do a kidney transplant while a nurse can't order a xanax pill for my colonoscopy. Moreover, I see no reason why I should be prohibited from choosing whoever I want to do whatever I want to me.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8579829 - 06/30/08 07:24 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand how a family physician is able to do the anesthesia on a heart transplant, something he knows nothing about,
A family physician is not able to do the anaesthesia on a heart transplant.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579851 - 06/30/08 07:40 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: That's the CRNA program that Seuss mentioned. Seems like a good idea now that I can see how much extra training is required. And they also get paid $140k! And so they should.
I see nothing there about "blocking legislation giving nurses the right to practice anaesthesia". It seems they've had that right for ages and it isn't under any threat. Unless it's just not mentioned in that article.
They haven't, to my knowledge, though I didn't read the link. Did they have the right to practice autonomously?
I'm only aware of the regulations and laws relativly recently, and they tell a different story. Many states have had fights with the nurses and doctors groups.
The doctors say the nurses will kill ya, the nurses promise not to, and the issue of personal choice is neglected.
I should be able to get whatever done to me by whoever.
Since the laws in all states I'm aware of allow a dermatolotist to do brain surgery, I don't understand the aversion to nurses doing anesthesia, unless its some antiquated notion of what a physician is and what a nurse is.
Screw that, the patients should have the choice.
I looked up for some information regarding the lobbying and lawsuits, but all I can find is medicare suits and lobbying- which really isn't my point. I'm more concerned with state laws allowing nurses or whomever to render care. But you can find a bunch of stuff on the efforts of physicians' groups by searching for midlevel provider scope of practice and anesthesiologist and physician. There's been a bunch of press and lobbying/lawsuit effort in this area by the doctors.
Informed consent laws need to be beefed up though.
Did you know that if I went to a doctor to get a asdfectomy and the doctor gets my consent, though I don't even know what it is, and the doctor cuts off my left arm and leg, the following will happen in my state:
Irregardless of whether I would have prefered to have kept my leg and arm, if the doctor convinces the court/jury that a "reasonable person" would have still done the surgery, I can't collect, and the doctor wins? Doesn't matter if I'm a professional boxer, and will die in poverty without my arm and leg. If the doctor can convince the jury that there was, say, a substantial risk to the limbs becoming cancerous, and a reasonable person would side with the doctor that its best to be cautious, their would be no informed consent violation? Never mind that I, as a boxer and an individual with my own opinions about what I want for my own body, still would have taken the increased risk of cancer over a career ending procedure.
Same with the pianist. If the doctor consents you for exploratory surgery, but doesn't advise you there's a chance the surgery could lead to death of your middle and pointer finger, and these fingers fall of as a result, you won't be able to win a suit if the doctor convinces the jury that a reasonable person would take the risk of the fingers falling off, cuz who needs all their fingers anyways, in exchange for the surgery to see what's causing you pain? Doesn't matter that you are not a "reasonable person" but an individual who makes his living with his fingers, you only win if the hypothetical average guy would have gone ahead anyways with the operation.
A person should be free to make choices others would not deem wise, including saving quality of life at the expense of increased mortality or whatever. Currently the law in my state doesn't recognize this. You are judged against the "reasonable person" not whatever your wishes are, or even whatever the wishes of people in your group (architects, pianists, boxers, laborers, et cet) are likely to be.
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579865 - 06/30/08 07:47 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: There's no way vaccines are related to autism. First they claimed it was the mercury, but they removed the mercury in the 90s yet autism continued to rise. And vaccination rates have been falling but autism is still increasing. It just doesn't fit the data. Something else causes autism.
You're being lied to
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38784.php
The nice lady said Mercury is good for you!
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8579877 - 06/30/08 07:54 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The doctors say the nurses will kill ya,
I'm sure they say no such thing.
Quote:
Since the laws in all states I'm aware of allow a dermatolotist to do brain surgery
Really. Are these the same states that allow a family physician to do the anaesthesia for a heart transplant?
John, I would like to agree with your sentiment, but you're making too many inaccurate claims and appeals to emotion. You shouldn't need examples to back up your general message of freedom-of-choice, but if you are going to use examples, at least make sure they're factually accurate.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579880 - 06/30/08 07:55 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
I don't understand how a family physician is able to do the anesthesia on a heart transplant, something he knows nothing about,
A family physician is not able to do the anaesthesia on a heart transplant.
Source?
I should clarify that I'm talking about in the united states here. Didn't mean to say this was everywhere.
In all state's I'm aware of a physician can do whatever he likes. You get your medical license and can do whatever procedure you want, residency or no, in any state I'm aware of.
Here it is for Ohio, you can do whatever you like in medicine/surgery once you get a license, which means, I believe, medical school and one year of residency (internship). You can do a year of IM internship and start doing heart surgery if you like:
Quote:
If the individual holds the degree of doctor of medicine, the certificate shall state that the individual is authorized to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to the laws of this state. If the individual holds the degree of doctor of osteopathic medicine, the certificate shall state that the individual is authorized to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery pursuant to the laws of this state. If the individual holds a medical degree other than the degree of doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine, the certificate shall indicate the diploma, degree, or other document issued by the medical school or institution the individual attended and shall state that the individual is authorized to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to the laws of this state.
ORC 4731.14(C)
Its like this everywhere I'm aware of in the US. A medical license is a license to do whatever you want, though you'll be a magnet for lawsuits, its completely legal in and of itself.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8579895 - 06/30/08 08:07 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That's interesting. The way wikipedia describes it, there are various Boards that grant licenses for the various Specialties; I don't know how it fits in with that law you quoted, but the result is similar to what we have in Australia:
Quote:
Today, after graduating high school, nearly every physician specializing in anesthesiology completes at least 12 years of education and training prior to becoming eligible for board-certification.
In Australia it's 17 years. Anaesthetists require the most training of any profession, second only to neurosurgeons (19 years). Must require some pretty serious dedication to set aside that much of your life...
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579898 - 06/30/08 08:07 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
The doctors say the nurses will kill ya,
I'm sure they say no such thing.
Quote:
Since the laws in all states I'm aware of allow a dermatolotist to do brain surgery
Really. Are these the same states that allow a family physician to do the anaesthesia for a heart transplant?
John, I would like to agree with your sentiment, but you're making too many inaccurate claims and appeals to emotion. You shouldn't need examples to back up your general message of freedom-of-choice, but if you are going to use examples, at least make sure they're factually accurate.
I'm sure you understand the nurses will kill you stuff is hyperbole. You can find instances of docs saying this kinda stuff, but I can't find a source applied to everyone as a whole. Nonetheless, I've heard several surgeons say if nurse anesthetists are allowed to practice independantly in given hospitals that patients will start dieing.
As for the scope of practice argument, I limited it to the united states, and I'm correct.
I've chosen Ohio and listed the the licensing statute, which imposes no limitation on the scope of practice. The only other restraint at law in ohio is just general negligence and civil actions for injuries and whatnot. I suppose the medical board could yank your license if they decided you were being unsafe as well, which I presume they would if you did operations you had no training in or otherwise exceeded your training.
But the point stands: you get a license of medicine/surgery/whatever in all states I'm aware of and can practice however you like under law. The only restraint will be post-hoc suits and license revocations, however; there is no freestanding prohibition on the things I"ve listed that you take issue with besides various rules of medical licensing boards that you not exceed your knowledge base. This is only grounds for license revocation, however; I'll conceed that point if that's what your driving at. It remains, however; that there is only a generic requirement in any state I'm aware of, that you have the ability to do the procedure proficiently, not that you have formal training. And since you don't need licensure for your particular area of practice, and only medicine, they won't stop you but after the fact.
So if you want to find some evidence that physicians once licensed are prohibited from a particular field less they have a residency/fellowship in it or whatever, feel free. That the license isn't restricted to an area is fairly well known in medicine, and as far as I know, the same throughout the united states.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8579901 - 06/30/08 08:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed, my understanding is a license is field-specific, mandatory, and revocable, but I'll look into it tomorrow (it's midnight here). Goodnight
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: zouden]
#8579932 - 06/30/08 08:35 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: That's interesting. The way wikipedia describes it, there are various Boards that grant licenses for the various Specialties; I don't know how it fits in with that law you quoted, but the result is similar to what we have in Australia:
Quote:
Today, after graduating high school, nearly every physician specializing in anesthesiology completes at least 12 years of education and training prior to becoming eligible for board-certification.
In Australia it's 17 years. Anaesthetists require the most training of any profession, second only to neurosurgeons (19 years). Must require some pretty serious dedication to set aside that much of your life...
Okay, that was me being USA-centric, sorry. I was refering to us, not you guys. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that AU is the same way. The term anesthesiologist infers a residency, so I'm sure that's what wikipedia's talking about.
There are boards that grant certificates and whatnot, but these don't have any legislative or police powers. This is the "board eligible" or "board certified" you hear about. All this means is that you've met some private group's standards to sit for their certification test/process or that you've completed such process and are recognized by them. Usually they require a license and so much residency in a program accredited by them or some other group, before you are eligible to sit for their test or whatever else they require to certify you.
There is no state I'm aware of that requires board eligibility even as a requirement to practice in any particular area.
The solution and how it works out is pretty neat for the free market folks, actually.
The hospitals won't let you operate or have privileges to treat/admit/write orders if you don't have board eligibility in the specialty you wish to function in. In addition, the hospital will usually only allow you to work within a limited area. This is to avoid malpractice suits, generally, although it can also be to protect the compteting specialty's turf, such as between, say, the surgeons and the radiologists in a given hospital- they will compete for some of the same procedures and teh hospitals settle who gets what procedure.
However, this is only in the general case, and is at the hospital's grace, not the legislatures.
For example, in many rural areas they hire whoever has a license to work the emergency rooms or be a house medical officer. At one around here we have internal medicine and family practice guys working in the emergency rooms, and also guys without any residency completed (usually they're students pursueing their training at the moment and allready have a license to practice.
The house surgical officers, on call surgeons that work for the hospital, are often surgical residents as well who haven't completed residency. This is cuz the house surgical guy gets paid shitty, so they can usually only get residents who are broke and couldn't get another job, and allows the hospital to pawn off their indigant patients to this cheap guy rather than pay a private doc to do their case. He'll also provide emergency care to middle-of-the-night cases.
But with the exceptions of the house medical/surgical officers and the ER, the hospitals won't usually let you work if you don't have board eligibility.
But you do get these guys doing operations and treating folks. An example is the doc-in-the-box places we get over here. They are free-standing urgent care centers that are popping up. Some of these places will take whoever they can get, whether they have any training or not. As teh cases they handle are all private pay, lots of money, and so stupid anyone could treat them, i.e. cough/sore throught/flu, they make money and don't care who the guy is. Anythign complicated gets sent to the ER.
You also get guys setting up their own shop and working. You hear horror stories about them once in a while. They get a liposuction machine and kill folks with it or just generally mismanage folks and get sued/ their license revoked.
Here's a fun story of a doc who actually was "board certified", but not in the field he was working in. The story notes there was no legal prohibition on the guy working in a field outside of his training, as he was licensed, and didn't need to be boarded.
Quote:
Kerri O'Reilly remembers waking up in the operating room last winter. The problem was that it was during her breast-reduction surgery, not after.
"I remember hearing someone say, 'Oh... she's waking up," O'Reilly, 39, recalled from her Troy-area home last week.
The surgery in December was not in a hospital, but in the office of Dr. Terri Savage, a self-described cosmetic surgeon who practiced inside O'Neys Medical Wellness Center at 30 W. Rahn Road, Washington Twp.
But Savage is not a cosmetic surgeon, a plastic surgeon or a certified surgeon of any kind.
Savage is certified in internal medicine, yet the 48-year-old physician has practiced for five years in plastic and cosmetic surgery, reducing and enlarging breasts, hiding wrinkles and unsightly veins, transplanting hair, tucking tummies and lifting, inflating and sculpting cheeks, chins and lips among other procedures designed to defy the natural laws of aging and gravity.
But there's nothing illegal about that in Ohio or across the nation. More and more doctors are cashing in on the lucrative plastic and cosmetic surgery business without the rigorous training - - five or six years of an accredited residency training program after medical school -- that certified plastic surgeons must undertake.
.....
"This is something that happens every day of the week, and they can do this because it's legal," Apesos said. "The public is caught in the middle of who is and who isn't real."
In Florida, cosmetic surgery in medical offices has come under increased scrutiny amid reports of dozens of patient deaths and serious injuries.
And in Massachusetts this summer, police discovered an illegal cosmetic surgery clinic after the death of a young Brazilian woman and the hospitalization of another.
Both underwent liposuction at the hands of a Brazilian doctor in the makeshift basement clinic on a massage table covered with sheets.
O'Reilly believed Savage was board certified and qualified to perform plastic surgery. A friend was pleased with Savage's work, and a call to the state Medical Board of Ohio confirmed Savage was board certified -- just not in what specialty.
O'Reilly, it turns out, wasn't specific enough with her question. Complications arose during her surgery in December, she said, and now she's facing at least two more surgeries to correct Savage's work.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/627557/doctor_who_performed_plastic_surgery_was_not_board_certified_/index.html
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8580124 - 06/30/08 10:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are boards that grant certificates and whatnot, but these don't have any legislative or police powers. This is the "board eligible" or "board certified" you hear about. All this means is that you've met some private group's standards to sit for their certification test/process or that you've completed such process and are recognized by them. Usually they require a license and so much residency in a program accredited by them or some other group, before you are eligible to sit for their test or whatever else they require to certify you.
Every physician, in the US, must hold a license to practice medicine. Medical boards in US states and territories issue these licenses. These boards have legal authority to issue licenses, investigate and discipline practitioners, and regulate the practice of medicine within their state or territory.
In addition to licensing, some physicians may be board certified in their specialty. Typically, in the US, when a physician claims that he is 'board certified', he is claiming to be certified by a specialty board recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. These boards typically do not have legal authority to investigate and discipline practitioners or to regulate the practice of the specialty.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: Seuss]
#8580159 - 06/30/08 10:30 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
agreed, I was loose with the language.
I used boards in the sense of the medical specialty boards, not the licensing boards.
Course the licensing boards have statutory authority, but the specialty boards don't.
It should be noted too that medicare is free to issue regulations, and this is a powerful motivator. Most hospitals would go out of buisness without medicare certification, as private insurers/medicare/medicaid/whatever all usually won't pay without acredation by the joint commision.
So that tempers my free market rant. I just think private payers should have the freedom, other factors excluded, to get procedures they want done by who they want.
The practitioner should have to aprise the patient of all relevant factors, including his education, and shouldn't falsely advertise. Other than that though, private contract.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8580308 - 06/30/08 01:28 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> I just think private payers should have the freedom, other factors excluded, to get procedures they want done by who they want.
I certainly cannot argue against that. Unless the Government owns my body, I should be allowed to do with it as I please, assuming that I am an adult.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: Seuss]
#8580472 - 06/30/08 02:22 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In the case of infectious diseases and antibiotic medicine what you do with your body directly effects the population at large. In these cases the govt. should be able to dictate, otherwise I agree.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: DieCommie]
#8580547 - 06/30/08 02:48 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What about the topic at hand? Is the vaccination requirement justified?
What is the threshold risk before which we may allow the government to require preventative action?
Flu?
Fights?
Tripping?
Should we require padded extremities to prevent some damage in case fights occur?
Handcuffs?
What is the difference?
In the case of measles, I've provided evidence the risk of Flu or Fighting is much much much greater.
I agree with you in principle, however; there should be a threshold, and I don't think all the typical vaccinated diseases meet that threshold. Pure potential for harm shouldn't be the only criteria. There should have to be a potential for that risk to manifest.
I don't think the liberty interest in refusing medical care and receiving your rights (education) should be trumped by a risk you might become and transmit measles, when the risk seems to be on the order of magnitude of 3x10-7 per the citation provided earlier- even presuming kids are as likely to contract measles as any other person in america- which I doubt, considering half simply import the disease from other countries.
Especially since this risk is much much lower for the kids that are vaccinated, I think the whole thing reeks of improper government intrusion for certain vaccination requirements.
Seuss, you said:
" I certainly cannot argue against that. Unless the Government owns my body, I should be allowed to do with it as I please, assuming that I am an adult."
but earlier you said that nurses have no place giving anesthesia. How do you square the two? You mean surgeons shouldn't operate with nurse anesthetists, hospitals shouldn't allow them, the state should bar them, or what? If you just mean that you wouldn't agree to be sedated by them then I'd agree with you- its all about what the patient wants. If the government even wants to set minimum standards for the incompetent, I'm fine with that. Even if they limit reimbursement for medicade- fine.
I just think the patient should be able to choose whoever they want. Informed consent, which I've given my opinion on previously in this thread, should be the only requirement.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8580567 - 06/30/08 02:57 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> but earlier you said that nurses have no place giving anesthesia. How do you square the two?
I don't feel that nurses should be legally licensed to provide general anesthesia. (General anesthesia is when they knock you unconscious for surgery, not in the sense of "all around".) However, if you want to go to Dave's Drive-Thru Face Lift Shack, then I'm not going to stop you. I think the government, or the licensing board, should be setting the minimum standards needed to claim "Board Certified" or "Licensed". Beyond that, consumer beware and let Darwin rule. (Reading your post again, I think we are saying the same thing here.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: American Academy of Pediatrics Gets Tough on Parents Who Refuse To Vaccinate [Re: johnm214]
#8580571 - 06/30/08 02:59 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The threshold is something that has to be debated amongst doctors, researchers and policy makers. It does, however, exist somewhere and cant be ignored.
Ever hear of the story of typhoid mary? Thats a good example of where an individuals right to freedom gets trumped by societies need to stay health. Sometimes you have to quarantine. Sometimes you have to force vaccinate or mass medicate.
Im pretty libertarian compared to most and dont delight in compromising individual rights for the good of the whole. But still, I have to say, to answer your question about the topic at hand, yes sometimes a vaccination requirement is justified. Sometimes.
|
|