B.C. family furious teen vaccinated without parental consent

[Gurn]

Do you see an approved treatment as being different than an approved treatment?

Doctors and scientists and people make mistakes, Luciferase would simply have us take whatever the state tells us to take, presumably because they are better and smarter than the rest of us. And yet I've just talked of one time when they were wrong. Thalidmide isn't the only thing pulled because they were wrong. Most of the time science and medicine get it right but blind faith and obedience to our "betters" is a dangerous thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

"Some drugs have been withdrawn from the market because of risks to the patients. Usually this has been prompted by unexpected adverse effects that were not detected during Phase III clinical trials and were only apparent from postmarketing surveillance data from the wider patient community"

If wiki isn't credible try this one;

http://www.mastersinhealthcare.net/blog/2010/10-prescription-drugs-pulled-from-the-shelves-and-why/

Sometimes they get it wrong.

[Hockeymummabear]

Lucifer,

Do you even have children? Do you have any skin in the game? Like I said before, if we don't start to genuinly figure out what is happening to our children then we won't have many healthy boys or girls left.

[Jägermeister]

Lucifer,

Do you even have children? Do you have any skin in the game? Like I said before, if we don't start to genuinly figure out what is happening to our children then we won't have many healthy boys or girls left.

A lot of issues have been attributed (in part at least) to the raising age of women giving birth.

50 years ago, most women were mothers by their mid-20's, nowadays it isn't uncommon to see women that are 35+ giving birth for the first time. There have been numerous studies that show as women get older the risk of pregnancy, and the risk of child disorders increase.

Example:

Once you conceive, and you get past the first trimester miscarriages, you face a higher risk of conceiving a baby with a chromosomal problem. This risk goes up every year. If you get pregnant at age 25, your risk of having a baby with Down syndrome, for example, is about 1 in 1,250, according to the National Institutes of Health. At age 40, the risk is 1 in 100.

[ilduce39]

Ah, the responsibility of those who can be vaccinated but choose not to in order to protect those who physically cannot. Interesting.

[Aladeen]

No, no it wouldn't. You can't fake "allergies", it's a measurable reaction in your body of IgE concentrations in the blood. If vaccines against lethal diseases were left to personal choice, you risk the possibility of having a sizable population being unvaccinated, completely nullifying the possibility of herd immunity. Think about that for a second.

So now in order to determine if they are telling the truth about having an allergy to a vaccine they must now be forced to give a blood sample. So there would also have to be a law written for that as well.

So let me get this straight, those who don't take the vaccine = jail time (great lets congregate those who are un-immunized) and then if they claim they are allergic but refuse to take a blood test to prove so = jail time.

Or do you prefer holding them down and just injecting them anyways? And should one of those patients who are held down do turn out allergic, should there be any recourse to those that forced the injection?

Just curious.

[Hockeymummabear]

Luciferase,

Didn't think so ; ) but you do get points for honesty, at least as far as the kids go. I have nothing else to add except we are at a crisis point now with our children.

[Mastaj]

Luciferase,

Didn't think so ; ) but you do get points for honesty, at least as far as the kids go. I have nothing else to add except we are at a crisis point now with our children.

I have two young kids. I vaccinate them, as well as myself.

And while this is completely anecdotal, they have never had measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, or polio. Is this all due to them being vaccinated? Not entirely - as noted before, hygiene and herd immunity helps. Would I risk NOT vaccinating them? Nope. I've done my research, and the minimal risks involved with vaccination do not outweigh the benefits.

I don't even know what you mean by "crisis point now with our children", but perhaps that's your experience. There's no crisis in my home, as far as my kid's health goes.

(the Canucks playoff hopes? Now there's a crisis )

[nuckin_futz]

Currently it is possible for people with AIDs to be criminally charged for spreading the disease to people intentionally. Please tell me how this is any different in principle if someone refuses vaccination and makes someone vulnerable ill

Because in the AIDS example the person is already a carrier.

If someone refuses a mumps vaccine it doesn't mean they will ever contract it.

You cannot assume that someone who refuses a vaccination will contract that illness and pass it on.

[nuckin_futz]

I'm referring to cases in which they had already contracted it and pass it on to others. At the very least I think that's worthy of a hefty fine

And what if they cannot afford a hefty fine? What then? Do we toss them in jail?

[Kryten]

And what if they cannot afford a hefty fine? What then? Do we toss them in jail?

How about a stint in the hospital where they can see the potential damage of the stupidity that they exhibit. A little education perhaps (as Luci has stated many times) instead of hyperbolic calling for jail time to prove an inane point.

[Aladeen]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Or are these the best policies you can think of?

Long term scientific education of children starting at a very young age will reduce the possibility of unfounded ignorance in the future. It's not a problem that can be fixed instantly.

At the meantime, current protocol includes requiring vaccination to work in the healthcare and public education sector. I'm not sure if that extends to food service and retail but I sure hope it does in the future. The more interaction with people your job requires, the more mandatory it should be to have all the basic vaccinations.

I don't like how you have extended the idea of policing vaccinations to such extreme measures. I think it's perfectly fair to refuse jobs requiring public interaction to people that are mindless to the risk they pose by not vaccinating themselves.

Currently it is possible for people with AIDs to be criminally charged for spreading the disease to people intentionally. Please tell me how this is any different in principle if someone refuses vaccination and makes someone vulnerable ill

What words have I put in your mouth Luci? Please describe how you would make Vaccines mandatory for the general population? Since that is not how you envision it being mandated.

How about someone who lives in the woods, should we form vaccine posses to hunt them down and inoculate them? Should we have vaccine police patrolling with hypodermics in their utility belts to on-site inoculate those who's paper work doesn't show up to date on their vaccinations? Should we break down the doors of homes of people that refuse to bring their infants in to the public health nurse's office for vaccines?

What sort of nanny state would you like to live in Luci? because it sure is hell isn't one that the vast majority of freedom loving Canadian's would choose to live in.

What more than the policies that are instituted already do you propose? You say they should be mandatory but offer up nothing on how to practically accomplish this.

THESE ARE QUESTIONS I am not putting words in your mouth I am trying to understand how we would go about making vaccines mandatory.

This is the bottom line Luci: PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO VACCINATE ARE NOT CRIMINALS!

Ignorant? maybe? Afraid? probably, but not criminals.

Also your last point is absolutely ridiculous, those people ALREADY have AIDS. Just because someone doesn't get vaccinated does not mean they WILL get that disease.

Maybe, just maybe people wouldn't be so against vaccination if you know they knew what was in it. I don't buy a box of crackers without knowing what is in it, so I completely understand people not wanting to be injected with some substance when they aren't even given a list of ingredients which goes into it.

I still get vaccinated because I research about it, and I, for myself, determine that any risk is well worth the benefits. Not all come to that conclusion, and that is their prerogative not yours and not mine.

[ilduce39]

I have a feeling Hockeymummabear created a CDC account just to spread misinformation when this thread showed up on Google.

Or it's a De Niro dupe.

Good call... I ran into this:

http://www.theprovince.com/health/Anti+vaccination+parents+risking+toddler+life+mother+says/9642041/story.html

and I started reading the comments section.. it got me going so much I actually started pacing but clicking on where the majority of anti-vaccination commenters come from.. all from the US. It's like they organized it to bombard the section with misinformation.

[drummer4now]

What words have I put in your mouth Luci? Please describe how you would make Vaccines mandatory for the general population? Since that is not how you envision it being mandated.

How about someone who lives in the woods, should we form vaccine posses to hunt them down and inoculate them? Should we have vaccine police patrolling with hypodermics in their utility belts to on-site inoculate those who's paper work doesn't show up to date on their vaccinations? Should we break down the doors of homes of people that refuse to bring their infants in to the public health nurse's office for vaccines?

What sort of nanny state would you like to live in Luci? because it sure is hell isn't one that the vast majority of freedom loving Canadian's would choose to live in.

What more than the policies that are instituted already do you propose? You say they should be mandatory but offer up nothing on how to practically accomplish this.

THESE ARE QUESTIONS I am not putting words in your mouth I am trying to understand how we would go about making vaccines mandatory.

This is the bottom line Luci: PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO VACCINATE ARE NOT CRIMINALS!

Ignorant? maybe? Afraid? probably, but not criminals.

Also your last point is absolutely ridiculous, those people ALREADY have AIDS. Just because someone doesn't get vaccinated does not mean they WILL get that disease.

Maybe, just maybe people wouldn't be so against vaccination if you know they knew what was in it. I don't buy a box of crackers without knowing what is in it, so I completely understand people not wanting to be injected with some substance when they aren't even given a list of ingredients which goes into it.

I still get vaccinated because I research about it, and I, for myself, determine that any risk is well worth the benefits. Not all come to that conclusion, and that is their prerogative not yours and not mine.

Good points, as much as I agree with Luci I have to think she is a tad off with this one. Until we have some mass epidemic of the plague or zombie virus lol I don't see why it would be classified as criminal behaviour to refuse vaccinations. I support vaccinations 100% don't get me wrong, but I still think the individual should have the right to choose what enters their body. I support all vaccinations except influenza (multiple strains) and some newer ones based on the reason that I don't need them... plan and simple. Once I age or become extremely frail I will take those vaccinations, but right now I feel healthy as horse!

Now the question of should it become mandatory for children to be vaccinated I believe yes, based on the evidence of vaccines saving lives. If a child develops a rare adverse reaction then the parents should have the right to refuse further vaccinations. Once an individual reaches a age of maturity they should have the right to choose after that point.

[ilduce39]

What words have I put in your mouth Luci? Please describe how you would make Vaccines mandatory for the general population? Since that is not how you envision it being mandated.

How about someone who lives in the woods, should we form vaccine posses to hunt them down and inoculate them? Should we have vaccine police patrolling with hypodermics in their utility belts to on-site inoculate those who's paper work doesn't show up to date on their vaccinations? Should we break down the doors of homes of people that refuse to bring their infants in to the public health nurse's office for vaccines?

What sort of nanny state would you like to live in Luci? because it sure is hell isn't one that the vast majority of freedom loving Canadian's would choose to live in.

What more than the policies that are instituted already do you propose? You say they should be mandatory but offer up nothing on how to practically accomplish this.

THESE ARE QUESTIONS I am not putting words in your mouth I am trying to understand how we would go about making vaccines mandatory.

This is the bottom line Luci: PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO VACCINATE ARE NOT CRIMINALS!

Ignorant? maybe? Afraid? probably, but not criminals.

Also your last point is absolutely ridiculous, those people ALREADY have AIDS. Just because someone doesn't get vaccinated does not mean they WILL get that disease.

Maybe, just maybe people wouldn't be so against vaccination if you know they knew what was in it. I don't buy a box of crackers without knowing what is in it, so I completely understand people not wanting to be injected with some substance when they aren't even given a list of ingredients which goes into it.

I still get vaccinated because I research about it, and I, for myself, determine that any risk is well worth the benefits. Not all come to that conclusion, and that is their prerogative not yours and not mine.

Have to agree with this though.. in the end, I don't think we make very good dictators Aladeen. I won't lie - I mostly got into it for the bunga bunga.

[Gurn]

"Blind faith? Now that is just offensive,'

you find those words offensive, but have no problem with removing peoples right to control what goes into their bodies?

You are offended by words, while at this point I can't put into words just how much the idea of removing peoples right to control their bodies just scares the crap out of me.

[-DLC-]

Your entire post loses relevance (along with drummer4now's) if you looked at my reply to nuckin_futz. Let me restate what I said all along again in case you missed it.

1. People who do not have records of getting basic vaccinations against lethal diseases should be denied jobs that require interaction (your hyperboles are getting crazy, please stop). Governments should regulate this by requiring private businesses to include this checkup in hiring processes. Public sector jobs should stay status quo.

2. Someone who has willingly denied vaccination against a lethal disease has later been found to be the cause of someone vulnerable being infected should be punished.

So instead of cooking up ridiculous dystopian sci fi dramas Aladeen, think of it in a more nuanced way: When the average person is going to be denied access to majority of the jobs or risk getting fined for being the cause of infecting others when coming down with a lethal disease, that's a hell of a reason to get vaccinated. You don't need a police state for that. Reductio ad absurtum is a technique used when you have nothing else going for your argument.

You know what the bottom line is? People who choose not to vaccinate put others at risk. That makes it more than just their prerogative. It's a simple concept.

You'd never be able to prove it. As we go about our daily business, how on Earth would you pinpoint who caused it?

And there is an element of discrimination there....an employer doesn't have the right to know my medical history or decisions. And the day getting a job means giving up my basic rights to this privacy is the day we're all in trouble.

I am to be hired on the basis of my ability to do the job. Sure, people are screened for various purposes to enter into policing, etc. but medical issues are protected by privacy. Unless it's in a basic fitness test to determine whether someone is capable of strenuous activities, the rest is none of anyone's business. And that needs to stay that way.

[-DLC-]

Epidemiological evidence pinpointed the SARS outbreak to an index patient, it is very much possible to know who was the first and it's occurred quite a few times.

"Stay that way"? I don't think you're aware of even some of the requirements to volunteer in low tier hospital positions such as serving tea. This is not discriminatory at all. Whether or not you've been vaccinated says more about your education than medical history aside from very small minority of the cases.

Why is it that all police forces and many jobs require drug testing and evaluation? Are you saying we should ditch that too because it discriminates against banned substance users? And it's not even that drugs can spread from person to person yet it's done anyways (as it should be). Don't go there, Deb. It's an uphill battle

The reassuring thing about the asinine comments in this thread is that none of those posters will ever be in charge of large scale health operations and policies. Thank goodness.

If you're screened and test positive for drugs, that's cut and dry...you use drugs. Illegal/banned substances.

If you're screened and have not been vaccinated that doesn't mean you'll contract or carry disease...it means you're at risk to. So it's discrimination based on presumptions. Things that haven't necessarily come into fruition. Possibilities.

I do agree with your stance on protecting the public, but there's a line drawn in how far we can go to ensure that. My ex deals in this stuff and, especially in the workforce, there are boundaries and people can challenge them as discrimination.

My point being that this is my life and I decide. I understand your points, and they're valid.

But it's a hostility towards those who don't agree with you. People have their own reasons for doing things...sure, they may affect you in the end. There are many things that pose risk to others...smoking is one of them. Chemicals released in the air. People who have unprotected sex can contract and transmit disease...so do we follow them into their bedrooms too? No, we provide information and hope they do become educated and make the right decisions. But it's left up to them.

There's a limit to how far you can go in protecting the public and protecting privacy and the right to decide on our own lives is also something worthy of attention.

I didn't get involved, well, because I'm no expert. But my issue is with violating someone's right to decide, as suggested in this story. We haven't reached the point where we are forced to be vaccinated. So, until then, people have the right to decide for themselves and I respect that.

The gist of my point is that it still IS an option and while people are entitled to make these decisions, that must be respected and protocol followed in that. I'd imagine this girl probably felt pressured/didn't know and said ok. Then went home and had second thoughts? But the thing is - you've partially made my point...educate people. Her. Sit down and discuss it in a way that helps her decide. Not one that makes her feel forced into it (if that's how it went down).

I have a problem with how administrators deal with kids/teens in some instances. So my issue is more related directly to the topic. Her voice reportedly wasn't heard, and that's a problem for me because that's too often the case. People have an agenda in place and steamroll their way through with it, despite there possibly being questions or concerns. Doesn't seem right to have this decision made for her, despite how others feel.

[ilduce39]

Epidemiological evidence pinpointed the SARS outbreak to an index patient, it is very much possible to know who was the first and it's occurred quite a few times.

"Stay that way"? I don't think you're aware of even some of the requirements to volunteer in low tier hospital positions such as serving tea. This is not discriminatory at all. Whether or not you've been vaccinated says more about your education than medical history aside from very small minority of the cases.

Why is it that all police forces and many jobs require drug testing and evaluation? Are you saying we should ditch that too because it discriminates against banned substance users? And it's not even that drugs can spread from person to person yet it's done anyways (as it should be). Don't go there, Deb. It's an uphill battle

The reassuring thing about the asinine comments in this thread is that none of those posters will ever be in charge of large scale health operations and policies. Thank goodness.

Our little tyrant.

I've been chewing on this one for a bit - laws, as I see them, are to benefit society as a whole. Sometimes to protect us from ourselves, as with drugs. Some drugs are simply so debilitating and addictive that they render otherwise productive members of society into negative elements. The limits on this are how "enforceable" they are until they become more trouble than they're worth. (IE Alcohol and Marijuana).

With that in mind, it would on the surface make sense that vaccines should be mandated onto the population - I would say until recently that wasn't necessary as vaccines were largely accepted by the general public. (and the positive outcomes are plain to see.) To further this point, the fact that vaccines are already administered in public school systems seems quite coercive and indicative of our government's policy of doing what is best for us. This, along with public pro-vaccination education, is about where I would draw my line in the sand.

Ethics aside, the next step you are proposing, however, would cause more trouble than it is worth - who is going to "police" this? The people most likely to get sick are the unvaccinated - they aren't going to risk telling on people who got them sick in the first place. You then put the burden of prosecution on to medical professionals - who as overburdened as they are - probably aren't going to charge their patients and make the time to testify in disease court in order to gain a conviction.

As for hiring practices, you propose severely limiting social mobility of a young person based on the beliefs of their parents. If they are less-educated as you claim you are putting up yet another barrier for these young people already behind the 8-ball. It will also only take one employer who disagrees with the law to start hiring people without doing the checks (as seen with Aladeen and even myself - there are those who would resist the law even if they are pro-vaccination.) Again, who is pressing charges?

As some people have medically significant reasons for not getting vaccinated, there will have to be an exemption. This loophole will be exploited to the fullest as long as one medical professional has lower standards than another in this regard. Again, would the resources put into this effort outweigh the difference between an informed population with easily accessible and convenient vaccinations and these new laws?

[Hockeymummabear]

Why would anyone take advice from a person who uses satanic references (name and weird pics) and has admitted he doesn't even have children, or any skin in the game?

[kodos]

People with certain conditions are unable to be vaccinated and as such rely on others to be vaccinated as a buffer between them and potentially fatal diseases. Not vaccinating your children/yourself is grossly irresponsible to your children/yourself and the public who through no fault of there own are unable to protect themselves from these diseases.

This is why anti-vaccination wackjobs should be under scrutiny for their blatantly ignorant choices.