Comments on: Ethical Jab?

By: Kismet

Kismet — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:42:57 +0000

As one of those parents who didn’t continue with vaccinating my second child after he had convulsions the night after the first immunisation I find this whole subject very fraught… The doctor at A & E told me catagorically that my otherwise healthy child did NOT have convulsions due to the vaccine (sorry I don’t believe that) My GP accepted my decision without discussion, agreed that in the same situation he would possibly make the same decision. Preschools and other organisations demanded explanation for his under vaccinated status over the years and accepted it. He’s a healthy adult now.

More recently someone I know actually wanted to discuss whether vaccination was the best move given some of the childs other health problems and went into the pediatrician with a lot of information printed off the internet asking to talk about it. She was called a negligent mother and a disgrace. Whether the pediatrician in question was willing to continue to see the baby if unvaccinated is unknown – he won’t be anyway.

By: Johnnieboy

Johnnieboy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:29:32 +0000

Perhaps not widespread in NZ, but check out the 65 pages of testimonials from Texas parents who were harassed by their doctors for not letting their kids get immunized- even after the kid got seriously sick straight after a vaccination. An under-reported problem in NZ methinks.

http://vaccineinfo.net/harassment/report.pdf

I think recent rumblings about ‘closer connections’ between doctors and CYFS is really a foreshadowing of the same sorts of behaviour these Texas parents are complaining about- if you don’t vaccinate your kids, then you are abusing them.

In Auz, welfare payments to families will have ‘income management measures’ removed if the families can present a completed vaccination schedule for the child. Welcome to the brave new world….

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/new-law-to-quarantine-all-welfare-payments/story-e6frgczf-1225803474284

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:06:48 +0000

More concerning is the 5% who selected option ‘d’. Good to see that concrete thinking is alive and well in the profession.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:09:49 +0000

Read your post again: “While it is probably not unethical in a medico-legal sense to refuse to see a child for being un-immunised, it certainly seems entirely unreasonable.”

Probably 99.5% of physicians agree it would be unreasonable.

By: JC

JC — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:38:36 +0000

Yeah, I read that 17% as a sign of frustration more than a personal intent to not see such kids.

Still, with modern one or at most two child families and helicopter parents there’s going to be increasing resistance to immunisation because of the (small) risk of an adverse reaction. One kid is not a very diversified portfolio