Doctors "fire" parents from their practice for not vaccinating

[louandivy]

I think its unethical, no child should be turned away for a decision they didn't make.

Exactly! This is crazy, how can a child be punished for a decision that they had no say in? You can't just deny medical care to someone because you think they made the wrong choice, if thats the case then surely doctors could turn away smokers and drug addicts too? Its so wrong.

 

[Yammas]

What about the alcoholics who drink thesmelves stupid they still get medical treatment too for a self inflicted condition.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

But surely drug addicts, smokers and alcoholics aren't putting other vulnerable patients at direct risk just by being in the surgery itself?

 

[Lightworker]

Yeah in some ways it is unfair to the child because the parent made a decision that is at odds with the doctor, but it should be upon the parent of the child to then realize the consequences of their decision.

I think a doctor who acts in the best interests of the majority of his patients is doctor without fault. Thats the most that one can expect of him.

If they are inclined, home visits should be an option, but that is an extra stress and hassle on the doctor, and I think the parents should bear the brunt of that..why does the doctor have to bend over backwards to facilitate medical care to parents whose decision is at odds with his medical opinion? Thats unfair to expect that of him.

 

[marley2580]

I think its unethical, no child should be turned away for a decision they didn't make.

Exactly! This is crazy, how can a child be punished for a decision that they had no say in? You can't just deny medical care to someone because you think they made the wrong choice, if thats the case then surely doctors could turn away smokers and drug addicts too? Its so wrong.

I also agree. I do think that parents should try to be responsible about taking their children into the surgery - inform the surgery if you suspect something like measles and get either a home visit or an appointment for the end of the day. But vaccinated children do still get these diseases and, if taken into the surgery, can pass it on. What about children that can't get the vaccinations due to medical reasons such as allergies? should they also not be treated?

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Home visits in the USA are EXTREMELY rare and only done in if absolutely necessary.

 

[Nibblenic]

Ive taken Lo into the Drs with suspected serious disease, you are taken away form the waiting room into a side room to wait for you appointment. Simple.
Youve just got to tell them

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I think it's completey unethical to deny treatmeant to a child because of a choice there parents made for them. We have choice for a reason, healthcare is all about empowering patients to make choices about their own health by equipping them with the tools to make an informed choice. So if I person makes an informed choice not to vaccinate they shouldn't be segregated as it's basically saying " You made that choice, I don't agree with it so go away". I personally choose to vaccinate my children but I would in no want want another child denied healthcare if they are not vaccinted. It completly disregards the doctors duty of care towards that child x

 

[Lightworker]

They are not being "segregated" based purely on a "choice" they made. They are being "segregated" to safeguard the health of the majority.

Its not as if they decided to wear jeans to a formal dinner and they are being turned away, they made a choice that could severely compromise the health of other patients.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

If thats the case them if a child is admitted to hospital via A+E showing signs of a 'preventable' disease then should they be told to leave? Before they have been examined they have been sat in the waiting room with other children and people therefore the damage is already done and the infection spread just like it would be in a doctors surgery. In addition vaccinations does not mean a vaccinated child will not contract the diease it just means they already have anti-bodies within them to help combat the disease they have been vaccinted against. The immune response will be quicker therefore giving the child more of a chance of fighting off the disease without encountering serious complications. Also un-vaccinted children will more than likley mix with immune comprised children in day to day life. Stopping a child from attending a doctors surgery will not protect these children because coming into contact with un-vaccinated children happens every day we just don't know it.

I will say again my Aidan is fully vaccinated and so will this baby, I do believe that every child should be vaccinted but my child can contract the disease and spread it just as much as an un-vaccinated child can. My piece of mind is knowing they already have the anti-bodies to combat the disease therefore reducing the risk to them. But they could pass that disease onto an immune compromised child just as much as an un-vaccinated child could x

 

[angel2010]

Home visits in the USA are EXTREMELY rare and only done in if absolutely necessary.

I have never heard of it happening at all.

 

[angel2010]

If thats the case them if a child is admitted to hospital via A+E showing signs of a 'preventable' disease then should they be told to leave? Before they have been examined they have been sat in the waiting room with other children and people therefore the damage is already done and the infection spread just like it would be in a doctors surgery. In addition vaccinations does not mean a vaccinated child will not contract the diease it just means they already have anti-bodies within them to help combat the disease they have been vaccinted against. The immune response will be quicker therefore giving the child more of a chance of fighting off the disease without encountering serious complications. Also un-vaccinted children will more than likley mix with immune comprised children in day to day life. Stopping a child from attending a doctors surgery will not protect these children because coming into contact with un-vaccinated children happens every day we just don't know it.

I will say again my Aidan is fully vaccinated and so will this baby, I do believe that every child should be vaccinted but my child can contract the disease and spread it just as much as an un-vaccinated child can. My piece of mind is knowing they already have the anti-bodies to combat the disease therefore reducing the risk to them. But they could pass that disease onto an immune compromised child just as much as an un-vaccinated child could x

Good point! By the way, love the new avatar!

 

[tina3747]

Interesting news report last night I think on sky, they have irradicated polio in India down to the huge vaccination push in the last few years.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

Wow thats amazing news, glad that awful disease is being stamped out x

 

[Ramen]

My FFIL is a GP who does this. Obviously no one's going to turn children away from an ER, but a private practice clinic absolutely does have that right. He asks them to find another provider because he treats the elderly, pregnant, and patients carrying small unvaccinated babies with them to their doctors visit. We vaccinate to give the weaker among us herd immunity who knows if that unvaccinated child won't leave the country at some point and infect the waiting room when their parents bring him in with the measles? We'd nearly eradicated measles here until parents started purposely forgoing that vaccine.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

A vaccinated child could infect someone with measles as they can still contract the disease as a student nurse I have seen vaccinated children come in with preventanle diseases as well as un-vaccinated. I see no purpose in them stopping them coming in, a child that is unvaccinated doesn't carry around the disease everyday, we come into contact with un-vaccinated children in day to day life but just don't know it. Any one unvaccinated of vaccinated can pass on a preventable disease, vaccinated children just have a better ability to fight it due to already having the antibodies x

 

[summer rain]

A few years back doctors were striking whole families off their registers because of them delaying or opting not to have vaccines for their children, even it that objection was on a medical basis; because it made the vaccination figures for their surgery look bad and affected their funding. I don't know if it is still the case but some years ago GP surgeries could get £70,000 if they ensured all their eligable patients were vaccinated. One friend of mine her son had serious medical problems which meant he could not have vaccines and they got struck off the patient list of every GP in town because of this.

Also I agree with Aidan's mummy, so many people seem to think that vaccines both prevent a person becoming ill with a disease and passing it on; when it does not prevent them passing it on to others. I had rubella when my older sister was pregnant despite having both the seperate measles, mumps and rubella jabs and both doses of MMR, the doctor confirmed that yes I could pass it on to her and she did have to be tested for immunity to it when the test for rubella antibodies was not a part of the ante-natal blood tests xx

 

[Yammas]

Thats terrible that doctors can abuse the system like that!!! I'd love to know where they expect these patients to go when they just strike them off.

Also for me presonally its not about passing it on its having the antibodies to fight the disease and most likely having a less severe form than someone who isnt vaccinated.

 

[Sarahkka]

A vaccinated child could infect someone with measles as they can still contract the disease as a student nurse I have seen vaccinated children come in with preventanle diseases as well as un-vaccinated. I see no purpose in them stopping them coming in, a child that is unvaccinated doesn't carry around the disease everyday, we come into contact with un-vaccinated children in day to day life but just don't know it. Any one unvaccinated of vaccinated can pass on a preventable disease, vaccinated children just have a better ability to fight it due to already having the antibodies x

Good point, but the chances of coming into contact with the disease at all is drastically reduced if everyone is vaccinated in the first place. So by choosing not to vaccinate, you ARE putting others at risk and increasing the chances of anyone being a carrier in the first place. Also, if you are vaccinated, you are less likely to be a carrier, as your body (typically) fights off the disease much more quickly than someone who goes through a full round of it. So limiting your practise to vaccinated patients only does reduce risk of exposure. It does not eliminate it (neither does vaccination), but it limits it drastically. I prefer those odds for tiny babies and kids who can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons, and if I were the doc, I'd be in their corner.
I sympathize with the private practises and think they are making a very important point about risk. I do not think that this point is going to harm a child whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate. It may involve a slight delay in care at the most. Which is a reality of the choice their parents have made for them. I also highly doubt that this move is going to involve someone who chooses not to vaccinate showing up at their clinic with a sick child and being turned away. The patients are being given due notice. It is their responsibility to find an alternative that fits with their beliefs.